Forums dot lukpac.org

http://www.madison.com/wisconsinstatejo ... /53156.php

Don't trivialize the Constitution
2:49 PM 7/19/03

You don't have to be in favor of allowing gays to marry to believe that the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment to the U.S. Constitution would set a bad precedent.

In May, members of Congress proposed amending the Constitution to include "Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the Constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."

We leave it to the legal experts to determine the ramifications of that second sentence; squabbles have already erupted over whether it would or wouldn't prohibit states from granting benefits such as health insurance to people (both heterosexual and homosexual) involved in domestic partnerships.

What is most bothersome about the proposal is: It trivializes the Constitution.

For all the years this nation has been in existence, regulating marriage has been the job of state government. The Constitution says nothing about marriage, but it does say that all duties not specifically assigned to the federal government are left up to the states. Up until now, that has meant that state governments get to decide who can get married.

This has, naturally, produced 50 different sets of laws (51, if you include the District of Columbia.)

In most states, the youngest age at which a person can get married even with parental consent is 16 - but in Kansas, Massachusetts and Oklahoma, girls can get married at age 12 (14 for boys) if they have their parents' permission. Kentucky, on the other hand, doesn't care if the kids' parents say OK: It's 18 to get married period. Twelve states - Alabama, Colorado, Kansas, Iowa, Montana, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, Utah and D.C. - recognize common-law marriages, but the other 39 states do not.

The point is, the effect of this hash of laws on the institution of marriage has been - nothing. Oh, marriage has changed a lot in the last 200-plus years, but state marriage laws have had little effect on those changes.

Until Vermont, that is. There, the state Supreme Court ruled that Vermont's ban on gay marriage was unconstitutional, violating the state's equivalent of the U.S. Constitution's equal protection clause.

This struck fear into the hearts of gay marriage opponents everywhere - because the federal equal protection clause was the basis for the U.S. Supreme Court's 1967 ruling that states' bans on interracial marriage were unconstitutional. Thus the Federal Marriage Amendment, which tries to stop the states from extending to gays the same civil rights protections the states grant to other minorities.

No doubt the thought of gay marriage makes a lot of people uncomfortable - but so did interracial marriage 50 years ago. And look what's happened since then: Again, a big, fat, resounding nothing. The number of interracial couples has soared, although it is still a tiny percentage of all marriages. The institution of marriage survived, and so did U.S. society.

Protecting the "sanctity" of marriage by banning gay unions is as ridiculous as protecting marriage by making adultery a federal crime. There can be no doubt that cheating spouses do more harm to the institution of marriage, not to mention their families, than letting that quiet gay couple down the street get married, but you don't see any push for a constitutional amendment to ban extramarital affairs.

At any rate, amending the U.S. Constitution to prohibit gay marriage is like using a cannon to kill a fly. The nation has survived for 227 years without the federal government involved in the marriage business, and now is no time to start.

Copyright © 2002 Wisconsin State Journal

Along the same lines...

http://www.madison.com/captimes/opinion ... /53473.php

Editorial: Prayers are misdirected

An editorial
July 25, 2003

It's week two of televangelist Pat Robertson's 21-day "prayer offensive" to bring about the retirement of three U.S. Supreme Court justices, and we note that the trio haven't yet hung up their robes.

Through the power of prayers offered up by his "700 Club" followers, Robertson hopes God "will put it in the minds of these three judges that the time has come to retire. With their retirement and the appointment of conservative judges, a massive change in federal jurisprudence can take place."

These "liberal" justices - Sandra Day O'Connor, Ruth Bader Ginsberg and John Paul Stevens - most recently incurred Robertson's wrath by voting with the majority to strike down the Texas sodomy law. With his usual outlandish hyperbole, Robertson warns that the court's affirmation of privacy for all Americans "has opened the door to homosexual marriages, bigamy, legalized prostitution, and even incest."

Reaching back to long before the three justices joined the bench, Robertson tries to link them with a series of decisions over nearly 50 years that he says have damaged the nation's "moral framework." Those rulings include 1960s decisions banning prayer and the Bible in public schools, the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling making abortion legal, and more recent decisions pushing other elements of religion from public places.

Amazingly, Robertson cites none other than Thomas Jefferson in his call to end the "tyranny" of justices with whom the televangelist disagrees. Yes, the same Thomas Jefferson who asserted there needs to be a "wall of separation" between church and state.

That wall has protected Americans from the likes of Pat Robertson for 200 years. And if we want this country to remain strong and free for another 200 years, we should all be praying for it to stay in place.

Published: 6:49 AM 7/25/03

Copyright 2003 The Capital Times

I really don't care anymore...one way or the other.

This shows what endless, unintelligent, hyper-emotional, and seemingly ENDLESS Tv discussions, and cable news stories will do to a viewer. Complete Apathy, as a conclusion, instead of a alternative. Complete and utter surrender to the BLATHER!

This is what it has come to, about EVERY issue in our social culture, too ! No one cares and why should they.

As usual, breathtaking arrogance and presumption from the White House.

"Yes, I am mindful that we're all sinners," the president said Wednesday when asked for his views on homosexuality.

Christ on a stick. I'm really not sure how to respond to that. The supposed leader of the country smugly dismissing millions of people's basic rights with paint-by-numbers theology? Speak for your own blinkered world-view, George. I wonder what would happen if he was asked for his views on a black man and he responded with, "Shoot, nobody's perfect. I just hope he knows his place." I don't see the difference.

----------------------------------------------------------

Bush wants marriage reserved for heterosexuals
'We ought to codify that'
Wednesday, July 30, 2003 Posted: 3:03 PM EDT (1903 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush indicated Wednesday he opposes extending marriage rights to homosexuals, saying he believes marriage "is between a man and a woman."

Bush said it is "important for society to welcome each individual," but administration lawyers are looking for some way to legally limit marriage to heterosexuals.

"I believe marriage is between a man and a woman, and I think we ought to codify that one way or another," Bush told reporters at a White House news conference. "And we've got lawyers looking at the best way to do that."

Earlier this month, Bush said a constitutional amendment to block gay marriages might not be necessary, although the proposal has the support of Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tennessee.

The question of gay marriage has moved to the foreground of American politics after a U.S. Supreme Court decision in June that struck down state laws banning sodomy. Canada courts also have recently recognized gay marriages. In addition, the Massachusetts high court is expected to issue a ruling soon on whether the state can allow gay marriages.

The prospect has outraged religious conservatives, an important voting bloc in the Republican Party. And a recent CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll suggest the Supreme Court ruling has prompted a backlash: The number of people who have endorsed the idea that homosexual relations should be legal has dropped from 60 percent to 48 percent since the ruling, and only 40 percent of Americans say they now would support civil unions for homosexuals.

Even as he made it clear that he did not support the idea of gay marriage, Bush appeared to issue a call for tolerance.

"Yes, I am mindful that we're all sinners," the president said Wednesday when asked for his views on homosexuality. "And I caution those who may try to take the speck out of the neighbor's eye when they've got a log in their own."

"I think it's very important for our society to respect each individual, to welcome those with good hearts, to be a welcoming country," Bush added. "On the other hand, that does not mean that somebody like me needs to compromise on an issue such as marriage."

A number of states have passed laws forbidding gays from marrying or barring the recognition of a same-sex marriage performed in another state. The federal government's 1996 Defense of Marriage Act affirms that states are not required to recognize a same-sex marriage performed in another state.

The act also defines marriage as "a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife."

He will change his tune, around election time. They all do.

My father always said, "You can't legislate common sense."

Common sense says that while what we think of as marriage may only include heterosexual couples, times are changing, and gays are entitled to the same benefits, rights and protections that heterosexuals enjoy. Gays are getting the short end of the stick. My wife and I can be on the same insurance plan and file a joint tax return. Gays aren't even offered the option most places.

Common sense says a woman should have a right to choose, so that if she wants or needs an abortion, she can go to a clinic and see a doctor, instead of some yutz with a coat hanger on her kitchen table.

Common sense says that despite the fact this country was founded on the morals inherent in people with a sense of right and wrong, a sense typically supplied by religion and historically by Christianity, that this country should not endorse one belief system over another.

Common sense says that in a government where the rights of the parties involved are well defined a party should not overstep their bounds.

The closest thing we have to legislating common sense is the Bill of Rights, a collection of rights guaranteed to everyone equally, in the sense that not only the majority but minorities as well may enjoy the same freedoms. Pagans may worship as they wish the same as Christians. I can say, "Pat Robertson is a whack-job of the first degree," and we can all talk about how the RIAA is a money-grubbing bully.

Thank God it takes a lot to ratify an amendment to the Constitution, because that's the only way the Federal government could try to outlaw gay marriages. I think if they tried it any other way it would be unconstitutional.

And speaking of unconstitutional, what's with Robertson talking about legalizing prostitution? The legality of prostitution is a states' right, and if he doesn't want to see it, then he should stay out of Nevada. Like the abortion thing, if prostitution is legal, it's easier to keep it clean and safe.

It's a damn shame we can't get more Independents elected. I'm getting sick of all these extremist zealots trying to push their agendas through Congress backed by their parties based solely on the fact they are the same party.

I'm hoping for some decent presidential candidates in 2004.

I don't think I could have put it better myself, Terry.

I have to believe that people like Robertson have never been in contact with any homosexuals, and only rely on stereotypes and misconceptions. I can't think of any other (logical) reason for their thinking.

Then again, I guess things aren't always logical.

Bush wants marriage reserved for heterosexuals
'We ought to codify that'
Wednesday, July 30, 2003 Posted: 3:03 PM EDT (1903 GMT)

"I think it's very important for our society to respect each individual, to welcome those with good hearts, to be a welcoming country," Bush added. "On the other hand, that does not mean that somebody like me needs to compromise on an issue such as marriage."

This was my particular favorite part of his speech: two sentences with zero in common. The first only exists as a sendup or to provide a compassionate read on the second. Clever speech writing. Evil, but clever. Of course, if Bush really meant that the individual is to be respected and the U.S. should be a "welcoming counry," then of course whatever consenting adults did with their lives would be "welcomed."

mikenycLI wrote:He will change his tune, around election time. They all do.

Huh?? No he won't. This is his way of placating the religious right. He doesn't have any of the gay vote anyway. Bush/Rove just see this as a cynical way to get the religious conservatives all riled up and motivated.

Meanwhile, our servicemembers continue to bleed and the economy continues to sour. The 70% of the 2.4% GDP increase was due to increased defense spending and was a complete one off.

lukpac wrote:I don't think I could have put it better myself, Terry.

I have to believe that people like Robertson have never been in contact with any homosexuals, and only rely on stereotypes and misconceptions. I can't think of any other (logical) reason for their thinking.

Then again, I guess things aren't always logical.

Pat Robertson just needs a new issue for his fundraising drives -- nothing more. This is a guy who invests in Liberia as partners with Charles Taylor. Morality from Pat Robertson -- oxymoron.

chrischross wrote:He doesn't have any of the gay vote anyway.

Not *much* of it, anyway. As crazy as it sounds, I actually know a couple of gay Bush supporters

Along those lines, I wonder how Cheney's gay daughter feels about the "welcome" she's getting from her father's administration.

Actually, I don't really think these sort of issues interest Bush much at all -- he's more into the whole world-domination thing. He's just throwing red meat to the rabid right here to keep them happy.

It *is* interesting, though, how yet again he frames the issue in terms of what *he* wants ("On the other hand, that does not mean that somebody like me needs to compromise on an issue such as marriage."), as opposed to what's just for the people being affected. He does this constantly, especially in unscripted remarks.

As far as Robertson goes, the man earns his paycheck by scaring people into thinking gays, liberals, commies, foreigners and other suspicious characters are coming to rape their children and pee in their flower gardens. He isn't so much in the business of holding defensible positions as he is running a protection racket -- "Send me money and I'll fight the heathen for you. If you don't pay, little Johnny's gonna get buggered by your hairdresser."

Ryan

Has anyone besides me found it juuuuuussssst a little odd that Xenu "O Great One" has conveniently remained silent on this issue of gay marriage? Conspicuous in his absense, if you ask me.

I think his ultra right wing views conflict with our own.

What do you think?

I think it's a problem of embarrassment more than anything else. But I could be wrong.