February 24, 2004

Marriage Thoughts

Okay, the same-sex marriage debate seems to be intensifying. I've posted about this quite a few times, so I won't go repeating the same arguments I've made before, but I want to touch on a couple of points:

#1- President Bush wants to amend the Constitution to ban same-sex marriage once and for all. This may surprise you, but I'm actually opposed to this right now. Here's the process we need:
-Make sure judges are following existing laws (like the one in California that was passed BY VOTERS) instead of writing their own. If they try to be activists, they're done. Immediately.
-If this continues, and the issue is still a problem, let the states vote to determine whether or not they will institute same-sex marriage.
-If officials continue to defy the law after the voting is complete, THEN you amend the Constitution. Go through the proper channels first, Dubya.

#2: Laws against same-sex marriage are not denying rights specifically to homosexuals. Anyone who makes this claim is an idiot. I know people might say that only homosexuals want to marry members of their own gender, but that logic doesn't work. If we followed through on the logic that people with an inclination to do something have a right to do it, it would be legal for kleptomaniacs to steal, and it would be legal for alcoholics to drive drunk. It doesn't work that way.

#3: Comparing same-sex marriage to interracial marriage should carry about as much weight in a serious debate as comparing President Bush to Hitler. If you can't see the difference between color and gender, I feel sorry for you.

#4: I've seen an argument that denying same-sex marriage is unconstitutional. Where in the Constitution does it guarantee the right to marry? I've actually seen people cite the 14th Amendment, but that doesn't make sense either. They say it violates the Equal Protection Clause. Let's take a look:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

What part of that passage are they interpreting as a defense of same-sex marriage? Could someone PLEASE explain this to me? Last time I checked, homosexuals had equal protection under the law. They're subject to the same laws as everyone else. That's equal protection. Get over yourselves.

#5: This is related to #2, but I have to say it one more time: HOMOSEXUALS. ALREADY. HAVE. THE RIGHT. TO MARRY. The issue is whether PEOPLE should have the PRIVILEGE to marry members of their own gender. I'm getting tired of saying this, but a lot of people still don't seem to get it.

So, that's where we are now. Once again, I'm currently opposed to the Constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. It seems like Bush is trying to take the same path as the activist judges by going above the American people.

Let. The. States. Vote.

If judges continue to defy the law after the states vote, amend the Constitution to protect the will of the people. I know I said that already, but it's worth repeating.

Posted by CD on February 24, 2004 08:36 PM
Semi-Intelligent Comments

I was just thinking about it...
How long is it gonna take for the wording on an ammendment to be agreed on? THen how long for the House and Senate to find the 2/3rds majority they need. Then possibly bounce it to the states, etc.
[i.e. a lot of time]

I think what will happen in the interim is that DOMA will be challenged and work its way up/through the courts. I'd predict that if DOMA is overturned there'd be more support for such an ammendment.

Posted by: jaws at February 24, 2004 10:15 PM
< MTCloseComments old="10" >