| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"J Forbes" |
| Date: |
26 Feb 2004 09:21:38 AM |
| Object: |
Is the marriage amendment an establishment? |
I've been reading about the ongoing controversy about gay marriages, and
as far as I can tell the arguments against them are either religious,
traditional (which seems to be the religious argument), or slippery slope.
When the "man in the street" is asked about the question and opposes gay
marriage, the reason often cited is that the Bible says it's wrong. And
groups that are speaking up against it generally seem to be religious in
nature. Is it really just a religious issue? There doesn't seem to be
any reasonable argument against gay marriage. If these folks were
complaining about the expense to the country of giving gays the extra
economic benefits of marriage, then I'd say they have a point, but I've
never heard this argument. As far as I can tell, the proposed
constitutional amendment on marriage is a thinly disguised establishment
of religion, to which the first amendment may apply.
The slippery slope argument is interesting, the general claim is that if
we let gays marry, then we'll have to let everyone marry, even
polygamists. If we think about it, polygamy is actually a component of
some religious sects, so a ban on polygamy is an intrusion on the
religious freedom of those involved. I see no reason to ban polygamy
among consenting adults. I realize that most people will continue to
marry only one other person.
Fire away!
.
|
|
| User: "Fester" |
|
| Title: Re: Is the marriage amendment an establishment? |
27 Feb 2004 06:50:04 AM |
|
|
"J Forbes" <jforbspam@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:6ao%b.8974$yZ1.4271@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
I've been reading about the ongoing controversy about gay marriages, and
as far as I can tell the arguments against them are either religious,
traditional (which seems to be the religious argument), or slippery slope.
When the "man in the street" is asked about the question and opposes gay
marriage, the reason often cited is that the Bible says it's wrong. And
groups that are speaking up against it generally seem to be religious in
nature. Is it really just a religious issue? There doesn't seem to be
any reasonable argument against gay marriage. If these folks were
complaining about the expense to the country of giving gays the extra
economic benefits of marriage, then I'd say they have a point, but I've
never heard this argument. As far as I can tell, the proposed
constitutional amendment on marriage is a thinly disguised establishment
of religion, to which the first amendment may apply.
The slippery slope argument is interesting, the general claim is that if
we let gays marry, then we'll have to let everyone marry, even
polygamists. If we think about it, polygamy is actually a component of
some religious sects, so a ban on polygamy is an intrusion on the
religious freedom of those involved. I see no reason to ban polygamy
among consenting adults. I realize that most people will continue to
marry only one other person.
Fire away!
First off, I would be careful to distinguish between the way a law is
demagogued and the underlying reason for one. While they may be the same,
it is often not the case. I would first assert, that the common definition
of marriages is not unconsitutional on 'equal protection' grounds (if you
disagree, so be it, but then don't bother reading on). As such, it is not
appropriate for the courts to strike it down on that basis. The issue you
are raising, is that if a law has it's basis in religion then it is a form
of establishment. I would argue that it isn't.
Many of our laws are based upon custom and common law. The broadcast
standards or decency laws we have are another example of this. If the
custom grew out of a tradition that coincides with the religious tendancies
of our anestors, it is not invalidated by such a fact. In fact, when one
considers the 'religious' basis for many religious tendancies, one realizes
that they in turn are codified versions of earlier tradition themselves,
with the force of myth applied to enforce or justify them further.
Nonetheless, they are part of how our society came to be what it is.
Ultimately, Democracy is about allowing the majority to define the rules, so
long as the majority does not infringe upon the rights of others. So, if a
state wants to legislate marriage as a union between a man and a woman, so
long as the law does not fail other constitutional tests, it should be
allowed to stand.
I wouldn't care a whole lot if the majority decides to change it, and does
so through legislation. Where I object, is when the courts step in and
contrive or invent an excuse to overturn the will of the majority. When the
courts overturn the majority without a firm basis in Consitutional law, it
endangers Democracy. None of us should want our society to be ruled by a
small number 'enlightened' officials.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Is the marriage amendment an establishment? |
27 Feb 2004 09:42:37 AM |
|
|
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote
I would first assert, that the common definition of
marriages is not unconsitutional on 'equal protection'
grounds (if you disagree, so be it, but then don't
bother reading on).
This isn't a matter for "disagreement" or "opinion."
You're wrong. Period.
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court said so. The
argument is over. The speculation has long since given
way to fact. You are wrong, period.
Now, the fact is that no state has the "right" to decide whether
or not it will recognize marriages performed in other states.
They don't.
Again, no question here. No room for argument, nothing to
debate. No state has the "right" to decide whether or not it
will recognize marriages performed in other states.
"Full Faith & Credit."
Because of Article IV of the U.S. constitution, the "Full Faith &
Credit" clause, a couple married in one state is still married if
they move to another state. Not because of state laws, but because
of the constitutional mandate established in Article IV.
You're welcome.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "W.Syme" |
|
| Title: Re: Is the marriage amendment an establishment? |
26 Feb 2004 09:18:03 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 15:21:38 GMT, J Forbes <jforbspam@fastmail.fm>
wrote:
I've been reading about the ongoing controversy about gay marriages, and
as far as I can tell the arguments against them are either religious,
traditional (which seems to be the religious argument), or slippery slope.
When the "man in the street" is asked about the question and opposes gay
marriage, the reason often cited is that the Bible says it's wrong. And
groups that are speaking up against it generally seem to be religious in
nature. Is it really just a religious issue?
Of course not. It's not a religious issue either. Religion is used as
an excuse. The real reason probably is "it's new and strange and
therefore scare and therefore bad".
The slippery slope argument is interesting, the general claim is that if
we let gays marry, then we'll have to let everyone marry, even
polygamists.
I absolutely do not see why it is against to law to have several
wives, or husbands.
--
Where are the goblins?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lord Calvert" |
|
| Title: Re: Is the marriage amendment an establishment? |
26 Feb 2004 11:30:27 PM |
|
|
The slippery slope argument is interesting, the general claim is that if
we let gays marry, then we'll have to let everyone marry, even
polygamists.
I absolutely do not see why it is against to law to have several
wives, or husbands.
Because in 1878, when Reynolds v. United States was handed down, the US
government had a serious hard-on against the Mormon church. They believed that
they were political and social subversives and were willing to do anything and
everything to hammer them down, up to and including a massacre to make Waco and
Ruby Ridge look like a kindergarten costume party (which fortunately did not
happen). As the polygamy custom was the most obvious difference, the government
decided to attack them at that point in order to compel adherence. Putting it
bluntly, Reynolds v. US was simply a horrific decision and was based, not in
law but on religious bigotry.
It took 89 years for the Supreme Court to correct their error when they
effectively overturned Reynolds in the Loving v. Virginia case. It is certainly
arguable that if the government does not have the power to regulate consensual
interracial marriage it also does not have the power to regulate consensual
polygamous or polyandrous marriage. In fact, a free government does not have
the power to regulate consensual marriage at all. That power resides solely
with the individuals concerned.
Rich Goranson, Amherst, NY, USA (aa#MCMXCIX, a-vet#1)
EAC Department of Applied Rattan Use
"Without faith we might relapse into scientific or rational thinking, which
leads by a slippery slope toward constitutional democracy." - Robert Anton
Wilson
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "J Forbes" |
|
| Title: Re: Is the marriage amendment an establishment? |
26 Feb 2004 09:33:00 AM |
|
|
W.Syme wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 15:21:38 GMT, J Forbes <jforbspam@fastmail.fm>
wrote:
I've been reading about the ongoing controversy about gay marriages, and
as far as I can tell the arguments against them are either religious,
traditional (which seems to be the religious argument), or slippery slope.
When the "man in the street" is asked about the question and opposes gay
marriage, the reason often cited is that the Bible says it's wrong. And
groups that are speaking up against it generally seem to be religious in
nature. Is it really just a religious issue?
Of course not. It's not a religious issue either. Religion is used as
an excuse. The real reason probably is "it's new and strange and
therefore scare and therefore bad".
But why is it that it appears to be so much more scary and bad to
religious folks?
.
|
|
|
| User: "W.Syme" |
|
| Title: Re: Is the marriage amendment an establishment? |
26 Feb 2004 09:24:40 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 15:33:00 GMT, J Forbes <jforbspam@fastmail.fm>
wrote:
Of course not. It's not a religious issue either. Religion is used as
an excuse. The real reason probably is "it's new and strange and
therefore scare and therefore bad".
But why is it that it appears to be so much more scary and bad to
religious folks?
Maybe because folks that are by nature scared of change easier turn to
religion?
--
Where are the goblins?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory Gadow" |
|
| Title: Re: Is the marriage amendment an establishment? |
26 Feb 2004 10:15:19 AM |
|
|
Your subject line is meaningless. By definition, amendments to the
Constitution are constitutional. If the "marriage as special right for
heterosexuals only" amendment is ratified, it would be constitutional even if
the only justification is the establishment of religion.
--
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
"If you make yourself a sheep, the wolves will eat you."
-- Benjamin Franklin
.
|
|
|
| User: "J Forbes" |
|
| Title: Re: Is the marriage amendment an establishment? |
26 Feb 2004 10:43:26 AM |
|
|
Gregory Gadow wrote:
Your subject line is meaningless. By definition, amendments to the
Constitution are constitutional. If the "marriage as special right for
heterosexuals only" amendment is ratified, it would be constitutional even if
the only justification is the establishment of religion.
Actually, my subject line does not mention anything about it being an
*unconstitutional* establishment....that comes later in the body of my post.
I am mainly curious to find whether other people think the amendment is
indeed an establishment of religion. Would you mind offering your opinion?
--
Jim
Visit the Selectric Typewriter Museum!
http://www.mindspring.com/~jforbes2
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lord Calvert" |
|
| Title: Re: Is the marriage amendment an establishment? |
26 Feb 2004 11:39:19 PM |
|
|
Actually, my subject line does not mention anything about it being an
*unconstitutional* establishment....that comes later in the body of my post.
I am mainly curious to find whether other people think the amendment is
indeed an establishment of religion. Would you mind offering your opinion?
I do not think it is an establishment of religion but I do think it sets a much
worse precedent. It means that the government is the final authority on who can
get married and can use whatever criteria they see fit to approve or deny
marriage. The right of marriage is stripped from all Americans and becomes a
power of the state to be granted or denied at whim, depending on political
convenience.
There is another word for that concept . That word is eugenics. It is the
absolute worst of social engineering. This is something you see in Communist
nations and other totalitarian states...not in a free country.
Rich Goranson, Amherst, NY, USA (aa#MCMXCIX, a-vet#1)
EAC Department of Applied Rattan Use
"Without faith we might relapse into scientific or rational thinking, which
leads by a slippery slope toward constitutional democracy." - Robert Anton
Wilson
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory Gadow" |
|
| Title: Re: Is the marriage amendment an establishment? |
26 Feb 2004 11:59:55 AM |
|
|
J Forbes wrote:
Gregory Gadow wrote:
Your subject line is meaningless. By definition, amendments to the
Constitution are constitutional. If the "marriage as special right for
heterosexuals only" amendment is ratified, it would be constitutional even if
the only justification is the establishment of religion.
Actually, my subject line does not mention anything about it being an
*unconstitutional* establishment....that comes later in the body of my post.
I am mainly curious to find whether other people think the amendment is
indeed an establishment of religion. Would you mind offering your opinion?
My apologies. I assumed that, in speaking of establishment (with religion implied),
you meant to ask if the marriage amendment would be unconstitutional. That's what I
get for not reading thoroughly :-/
All of the arguments against equal marriage fall very easily. All, that is, except
one that can not be rationally argued: "My religion says it's icky." It is on this
basis that the amendment is being pushed. Since there are many individuals in the
United States who do not share this belief, and because there are many religious
organizations in the United States that do not propose this doctrine -- in fact,
there are religious organizations that would welcome the opportunity to celebrate
and honor same sex couples in marriage -- the people who wish to amend the
Constitution because "my religion says it's icky" wish to amend the Constituion to
enshrine their religious beliefs to the exclusion of dissenting religious beliefs.
That, it would seem, is the very definition of "establishment."
So yes.
--
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
"If you make yourself a sheep, the wolves will eat you."
-- Benjamin Franklin
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
