Religions > Atheism > Re: CNN.com: Bush wants marriage reserved for heterosexuals
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Lord Calvert" |
| Date: |
31 Jul 2003 08:52:35 AM |
| Object: |
Re: CNN.com: Bush wants marriage reserved for heterosexuals |
As I remember it, DOMA had passed in to a joint House / Senate
committee, so that the two different versions of the bill could be
reconciled and a single version presented to both chambers of Congress
and it will still fail before the SCOTUS.
Hopefully, and only if Bush manages not to appoint any judges. The first
challenge, though, is to get a state to actually permit same-sex marriage.
It is often said that unanimous decisions by the Supreme Court are virtually
impossible to overturn. There is already precedent for this subject in a
Supreme Court unanimous decision...Loving v. Virginia in 1967. The government
has just as little right denying marriage on the basis of sex as they did
denying marriage on the basis of race. Marriage is the province of the
individuals involved and cannot be regulated by the state.
Rich Goranson, Amherst, NY, USA (aa#MCMXCIX, a-vet#1)
EAC Ill-Legal Dept. "Abandon Hope All Ye Who Enter Here"
"My country, right or wrong; to be defended when right and righted when wrong."
- Thomas Jefferson
.
|
|
| User: "david asman" |
|
| Title: Re: CNN.com: Bush wants marriage reserved for heterosexuals |
31 Jul 2003 09:16:53 AM |
|
|
Lord Calvert wrote:
As I remember it, DOMA had passed in to a joint House / Senate
committee, so that the two different versions of the bill could be
reconciled and a single version presented to both chambers of Congress
and it will still fail before the SCOTUS.
Hopefully, and only if Bush manages not to appoint any judges. The first
challenge, though, is to get a state to actually permit same-sex marriage.
It is often said that unanimous decisions by the Supreme Court are virtually
impossible to overturn. There is already precedent for this subject in a
Supreme Court unanimous decision...Loving v. Virginia in 1967. The government
has just as little right denying marriage on the basis of sex as they did
denying marriage on the basis of race. Marriage is the province of the
individuals involved and cannot be regulated by the state.
I wish I was as confident as you regarding a potential case for same-sex marriages
in the Supreme Court. Race and sex are different as far as the level of scrutiny
that the Court would apply. For example, saying no women in combat positions is
okay, while saying no African-Americans in combat positions is not okay.
I'm not saying I agree with the court's analysis, but classifications based on race
have traditionally received more rigid scrutiny than those based on sex. I think
the difference in the level of scrutiny may make this a closer decision than you
think. Plus there's Thomas, Scalia et al. on the court now.
Dave
Rich Goranson, Amherst, NY, USA (aa#MCMXCIX, a-vet#1)
EAC Ill-Legal Dept. "Abandon Hope All Ye Who Enter Here"
"My country, right or wrong; to be defended when right and righted when wrong."
- Thomas Jefferson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lord Calvert" |
|
| Title: Re: CNN.com: Bush wants marriage reserved for heterosexuals |
31 Jul 2003 11:57:36 AM |
|
|
It is often said that unanimous decisions by the Supreme Court are
virtually
impossible to overturn. There is already precedent for this subject in a
Supreme Court unanimous decision...Loving v. Virginia in 1967. The
government
has just as little right denying marriage on the basis of sex as they did
denying marriage on the basis of race. Marriage is the province of the
individuals involved and cannot be regulated by the state.
I wish I was as confident as you regarding a potential case for same-sex
marriages
in the Supreme Court. Race and sex are different as far as the level of
scrutiny
that the Court would apply. For example, saying no women in combat positions
is
okay, while saying no African-Americans in combat positions is not okay.
Those who support increased federal regulation in this matter (the so-called
"conservatives") are going to have present a pretty solid argument for their
case. If they even attempt to do so they are abandoning conservative
principles.
I do think your argument about combat positions has one supporter. Barry
Goldwater was a champion of permitting homosexuals to serve in the military. It
does seem strange that the princples of the personification of extremist
right-wing conservatism have been so completely abandoned by his party.
I'm not saying I agree with the court's analysis, but classifications based
on race
have traditionally received more rigid scrutiny than those based on sex. I
think
the difference in the level of scrutiny may make this a closer decision than
you
think. Plus there's Thomas, Scalia et al. on the court now.
I think the law's supporters still have not clearly made their case as to why
this should be so in regards to the law. Why is a federal definition of
marriage necessary? Frankly I found the DOMA to be extremely socialistic
legislation.
Rich Goranson, Amherst, NY, USA (aa#MCMXCIX, a-vet#1)
EAC Ill-Legal Dept. "Abandon Hope All Ye Who Enter Here"
"My country, right or wrong; to be defended when right and righted when wrong."
- Thomas Jefferson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brian E. Clark" |
|
| Title: Re: CNN.com: Bush wants marriage reserved for heterosexuals |
31 Jul 2003 12:54:34 PM |
|
|
Lord Calvert <forlornh@aol.commode> wrote:
If they even attempt to do so they are abandoning conservative
principles.
As if that has stopped them thus far...
--
-----------
Brian E. Clark
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory Gadow" |
|
| Title: Re: CNN.com: Bush wants marriage reserved for heterosexuals |
31 Jul 2003 12:50:56 PM |
|
|
Lord Calvert wrote:
I do think your argument about combat positions has one supporter. Barry
Goldwater was a champion of permitting homosexuals to serve in the military. It
does seem strange that the princples of the personification of extremist
right-wing conservatism have been so completely abandoned by his party.
That is because Goldwater was a *true* conservative in the Amercan sense; a
libertarian who believed that government should be as small and unobtrusive as
possible, fiscally lean, and focused on defense. He was a very strong supporter of
states' rights but also a very strong goad on states' responsibilities (he helped
push through legislation in the 60's and 70's that required states and the federal
government to honor long ignored treaties with Native populations.) He was an
idealist who was more than happy to stick to his guns, come Hell or high water.
As a result, he was effectively thrown out of the Republican Party. When he
expressed dismay at how the religious right was influencing the GOP during the
Reagan campaign and administration, he found himself getting moved out of committee
assignments and removed from positions of influence. When he soon after retired
from the Senate, he was pretty much excommunicated (an appropriate term, I think.)
--
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 |
|
|
