Originally Posted By ecdc <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15880408/site/newsweek/" target="_blank">http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15 880408/site/newsweek/</a> Mitt Romney is pushing to get a gay marriage amendment ban on the Massachusetts ballot, even though it will never pass. Political observers see this for exactly what it is, an attempt to cast himself as the "really conservative" one in light of John McCain and Rudy Guliani in his bid for the Presidential nomination. Hopefully voters in 2008 will see these kinds of tactics as exactly what they are - a play on the bigotry of only the most extreme of the right.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh Yes, it couldn't be he is doing this because he believes that recognition of gay marriage is detrimental to society and that the way it was imposed on the people of Massachusetts was undemocratic, could it?
Originally Posted By ecdc "Yes, it couldn't be he is doing this because he believes that recognition of gay marriage is detrimental to society and that the way it was imposed on the people of Massachusetts was undemocratic, could it?" No, it couldn't. I have no doubt that Romney is opposed personally to gay marriage. But polls in Massachusetts show that over 63% of the population approve of legalizing gay marriages. So no, this isn't about trying to use the democratic process; it's about getting attention as the Presidential candidate who doesn't like gay marriage, thus appealing to the bigotry of the American people who are opposed to gay marriage. Kinda like how every election year some senator or congressman or President pushes for a gay marriage amendment to the U.S. Constitution that they know has no chance of passing. Of course, the Constitution is used to grant rights, not restrict them. Except for the prohibition amendment. That sure worked out well.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <But polls in Massachusetts show that over 63% of the population approve of legalizing gay marriages.> You know, polls aren't always right. That's why we hold elections. <Of course, the Constitution is used to grant rights, not restrict them.> It does both. For instance, it restricts the right of the government to establish a religion. It could also restrict the right of a government to recognize certain marriages.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<You know, polls aren't always right. That's why we hold elections.>> I think Republicans would have been better off sticking to the polls last time around.
Originally Posted By bboisvert <<Of course, the Constitution is used to grant rights, not restrict them.>> <<It does both. For instance, it restricts the right of the government to establish a religion. It could also restrict the right of a government to recognize certain marriages.>> Restricting the GOVERNMENT'S right to recognize a marriage between two people is way different that restricting the rights of those two PEOPLE to be married. Using your same example, restricting the right of the GOVERNMENT to establish a religion is good while restricting the right of a PERSON to establish a religion is bad. The Constitution is not there to grant rights. It even states that we all are endowed by our Creator with rights that no one can take away. The Consitiution is there to make sure that the government does not infringe upon those rights by limiting them or taking them away.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Restricting the GOVERNMENT'S right to recognize a marriage between two people is way different that restricting the rights of those two PEOPLE to be married.> No one is talking about restricting the ability of people to get married. We're only talking about whether a State or its citizens have to recognize that marriage. <It even states that we all are endowed by our Creator with rights that no one can take away.> That's the Declaration of Independence.
Originally Posted By ecdc So Douglas, since we're only talking about whether a state should have to recognize a type of marriage, should they be able to not recognize black marriages? I'm not asking whether or not they morally should, but whether it is their right, through the will of the voters, to not recognize such a marriage.
Originally Posted By bboisvert <<No one is talking about restricting the ability of people to get married.>> From the article... <snip> Romney wants to amend the U.S. Constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman. </snip> So just what exactly does a "gay-marriage ban" do if not prevent a certain set of people from excercising their right to get married and have the same rights as others who get married?
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >> Political observers see this for exactly what it is, an attempt to cast himself as the "really conservative" one<< Odd for him to do, considering the mood of the nation is squarely in the center -- and the MA health insurance program seems to be one people on both sides of the fence have been applauding him for. But maybe this is the fast track to scooping up a bunch of campaign dollars from the far right.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <So Douglas, since we're only talking about whether a state should have to recognize a type of marriage, should they be able to not recognize black marriages?> That would be a clear violation of the 14th amendment. <So just what exactly does a "gay-marriage ban" do if not prevent a certain set of people from excercising their right to get married and have the same rights as others who get married?> It prevents courts from ordering people to recognize gay marriages against their will.
Originally Posted By ecdc "That would be a clear violation of the 14th amendment." Why would it not be a clear violation of the 14th Amendment to not recognize gay marriages? The 14th Amendment says nothing of race. It just says we won't deny *any* citizen of the state the right to equal protection under the law. "It prevents courts from ordering people to recognize gay marriages against their will." You mean like how the courts ordered people to recognize the rights of black people against the will of white people?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Why would it not be a clear violation of the 14th Amendment to not recognize gay marriages?> For the same reason it's not a clear violation of the 14th amendment to say that someone who pays more in mortgage interest pays less in income tax. <You mean like how the courts ordered people to recognize the rights of black people against the will of white people?> The people passed the 14th amendment, not the courts.
Originally Posted By ecdc "For the same reason it's not a clear violation of the 14th amendment to say that someone who pays more in mortgage interest pays less in income tax." Worst. Analogy. Ever. Spit it out Doug, tell me why it's not a violation. "The people passed the 14th amendment, not the courts." So if the people passed the 14th Amendment, then the people support protecting the rights of all people under the law. And when the rights of African Americans were not being protected, the courts stepped in and required the people of the South to recognize the rights of blacks. You can try as hard as you want, and you can find the analogy to the civil rights movement distasteful, but you can't demonstrate effectively why it's not accurate. It's precisely the same scenario. People in the 40s and 50s commonly claimed that they were not racist, but that black men had no business marrying white women. It just wasn't "natural" and it attacked "traditional marriage" that had been established in society for several thousand years. It's no different.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Worst. Analogy. Ever.> Nonsense. <Spit it out Doug, tell me why it's not a violation.> Because states have the right to decide which marriages they recognize. They don't have to recognize incestous marriages, or those involving minors, or plural marriages, or same sex marriages. <It's precisely the same scenario.> No, it's not.
Originally Posted By jonvn Good. Let him do this. If he thinks that this is something the public cares about over other issues that he could be dealing with, then he's really out of touch and this should really help point that out. There isn't a more pressing problem in that state? It must be a paradise, if that's all this guy can come up with to do for the people he is supposed to be working for.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Spit it out Doug, tell me why it's not a violation." Of course you know, he won't, because he can't. So he'll just go on to say he has posted some well reasoned arguments.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Of course you know, he won't, because he can't.> The answer is right there in post 15.
Originally Posted By jonvn "The answer is right there in post 15." Well, no, because a state can't create a law that violates the Constitution, which was the actual question that you sidestepped and did not answer: "Why is it not a violation of the Constitution?" And the reason it is a violation, since you asked, and as has been said a few times in the past, is because of the equal protection clause. The U.S. Constitution prohibits states from denying any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. That's why. And no, it does not mean that a man can then be free to marry a goat. It means that if two people can enter into a legal contract together, then any two people can. Now, if it came to pass that one group of people were allowed to marry a goat, and another group were not, then the equal protection clause would again come into play. But since that isn't the case, then such types of protests are not relevant. The tax law is also wrong, in that all people have the same law applied to them equally. If person X makes this amount of money, he gets taxed at a certain rate, regardless of who he is. That's equality under the law, and is not a violation of the 14th ammendment.
