Cookies!

I feel like I ought to draw a distinction here. In no way do I support the inability of homosexuals to marry. I have gone on the record numerous times as opposed to civil unions precisely because anything less than full marriage rights is offensive. That said, I still happen to trust that the community has the right to decide what will be allowed (aside from basic constitutional restrictions on that right). The scenario you envision is exactly the one I think would prevail, and homosexuals would be presented with the option of moving, dealing with the wishes of their community, or lobbying to demonstrate to that community why it is wrong. Using the courts to circumvent the will of the people is both unconstitutional (on this particular issue) and dangerous to all sorts of things liberals don’t care about (like the rule of law and civic virtue).

As for the anti-discrimination stuff, well I don’t think that businesses being able to hire whomever they choose is such a bad idea, however since in most areas it is currently illegal to discriminate based on sex, religion, ethnicity, age, and race, it seems logicial to add sexual orientation to the list. Doesn’t it?

Given the current body of law, adding sexual orientation to the list is certainly the next logical step. But I’d much rather see that whole section of the law dismantled than watch it grow.

It seems to me that if each community is allowed to make its own decision on the matter, there may forever be communities that do not allow gay marriage, inciting gays to leave these areas, and promoting a sort of segregation. I also do not think people should be forced to lobby for a right so basic as the right to marry, nor do I think the community has the right to deny them this. As for using the courts being unconstitutional, well I wouldn’t recommend using the courts so much as adding an amendment. Or would that be unconstitutional in a way I do not currently realize due to my immense ignorance?

Given the current body of law, adding sexual orientation to the list is certainly the next logical step. But I’d much rather see that whole section of the law dismantled than watch it grow.

Well… Good.

Certainly that would be the case. I imagine there are some communities in Alabama (or west Michigan for that matter) in which even a constitutional protection for homosexual marriage would not make it particularly appetizing to live. In fact, I question how many of these communities really have a significant homosexual population. It seems to me that homosexuals tend to congregate in areas that are particularly amenable to their lifestyle as it is (see Grenwich Village and the Castro District in Frisco). So the segregation currently exists anyway. I don’t see that allowing the community to decide would exacerbate the problem.

I also do not think people should be forced to lobby for a right so basic as the right to marry

How basic the right to marry is is really open to debate. Certainly the Constitution does not explicitly enumerate this right. Popular Constitutional interpretation, though, holds that rights long enjoyed by the people are to be understood as basic components of liberty and are thus contitutionally protected. On this view, heterosexual marriage is certainly protected, but homosexual is not.

nor do I think the community has the right to deny them this

That may indeed be true, but the Constitution is not a philosophical document; it’s a legal one. And laws, if they are to be laws, have to be interpreted in a manner approximating exactness. And the Constitution more or less leaves it up to the states to decide how they will handle issues like homosexual marriage… so it’ll take a good argument to get around that.

As for using the courts being unconstitutional

I wouldn’t say unconstitutional so much as extra-constitutional.

I wouldn’t recommend using the courts so much as adding an amendment

And this, as I see it, is exactly why the amendment process exists: to allow for democratic deliberation in the enumeration of new rights. Certainly that was the path taken in the abolition of slavery, the equal protection/due process 14th amendment business, and the extension of suffrage to women, among others. I see no particular reason why adding an amendment about marriage (homosexual or otherwise) shouldn’t be within the realm of possibilities.

Or would that be unconstitutional in a way I do not currently realize due to my immense ignorance?

There’s no such thing as an unconstitutional amendment to the Constitution. I suppose there is the bizarre possibility of contradiction between existing amendments and proposed ones, but I see no reason why one about marriage would suffer from that particular problem.

What happened to this business where it was declared that states had to respect one anothers’ marriage licenses? Oh, right, some idiots decided that we didn’t live in a federal republic and that states can act like separate countries and have the right to deny anything other states did.

But these fools have opened up the greatest opportunity ever for some really cool state: when this nonsense about “a marriage is between a man and a woman” gets passed, some excellent state should just decide to scrap marriage and not accept any marriage licenses from other states. Instead they will set up a newer, better license that makes people “verklemt”, which will join two people in certain ways as a legal and financial entity very similarly to the ways in which marriage did. I know that’s not what verklemt means, but it should be used anyway. These verklemency licenses will be all the rage and everyone will want to be verklemt. It’s the perfect plan!

Um, the 11th prohibits gay marriage…somehow.

So no marriage for you gays.

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.

Gays getting married wear suits. THUS THERE IS NO POWER OVER THEM AND THEY ARE ILLEGAL

what about naked marraiges?

Well, let us think about what would happen if we took this same stance on other such issues. For example, race rights. I mean, there aren’t too many blacks in Texas. Why not have blacks sit in the back of the bus in Texas if the community votes it? Sure, no blacks will ever move to Texas, but oh well, there is segregation already, right? Well, actually it does make a difference. Although there may be a grand total of one black person and one person who may or may not be black living in Texas, those people still have the right to be treated equally and fairly, just as any blacks who want to move to Texas have.

How basic the right to marry is is really open to debate. Certainly the Constitution does not explicitly enumerate this right. Popular Constitutional interpretation, though, holds that rights long enjoyed by the people are to be understood as basic components of liberty and are thus contitutionally protected. On this view, heterosexual marriage is certainly protected, but homosexual is not.

Perhaps then, I should have said a right so basic as the right to equal treatment under the law, freedom to live as we choose, the persuit of happiness, or freedom from the religious views of others being forced upon us. However, I guess when I said marriage specifically, I was speaking not necessarily of the rights listed to us in the Constitution, but the rights that you and I believe each person should be entitled to.

That may indeed be true, but the Constitution is not a philosophical document; it’s a legal one. And laws, if they are to be laws, have to be interpreted in a manner approximating exactness. And the Constitution more or less leaves it up to the states to decide how they will handle issues like homosexual marriage… so it’ll take a good argument to get around that.

It will take a good argument, yes, but I do think there is a good argument here for making this a national law.

And this, as I see it, is exactly why the amendment process exists: to allow for democratic deliberation in the enumeration of new rights. Certainly that was the path taken in the abolition of slavery, the equal protection/due process 14th amendment business, and the extension of suffrage to women, among others. I see no particular reason why adding an amendment about marriage (homosexual or otherwise) shouldn’t be within the realm of possibilities.

Right, but I’m not sure I understand why you think that is a worse idea than allowing the communities to decide for themselves.

The best kind of marriages.

YES. Now we wait until Nevada does this.

Most conservatives would argue that Texas does have the right to make the blacks sit in the back of the bus, while in the same breath bashing the fuck out of the Tennessee Valley Authority for breaking every constitutional law ever EVER EEEVVVVVVVVERRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!

This is why I am not a conservative.

Actually, that’s not true at all. Full faith and credit, as far as I can see, requires that each state recognize the marriages pronounced by other states, homosexual or otherwise. This Defense of Marriage Act thing, as such, is just blatantly unconstitutional, which is why a great many conservatives are advocating a constitutional amendment prohibiting homosexual marriages, or just repealing full faith and credit for marriage, or something like that. Thoughts I have about this:

First, it’s insanity. Adding constitutional amendments to suspend full faith and credit is just plain crazy. It’s something that has been enjoyed by Americans for the entire duration of the Constitution and, while simply suspending it for gay marriage is not the end of it, it certainly makes one wonder how many other times it will be suspended by a public that sees the amendment process as a way around their worries.

Second, it’s totally reasonable. When the Court has so willingly taken the liberal side in the culture wars (see Griswold, Roe, and Lawrence, among others), conservatives are faced with the only alternative left: pin the Court down by explicit telling it what won’t be allowed. We’re reaching a point at which democratic debate is no longer productive, which will almost certainly lead to the end of democratic debate. The Constitution is not a tool for the advancement of a particular ideology, but the Supreme Court seems bound and determined to make it that way.

The problem with this argument is that such a thing simply would not be allowed. Homosexuals almost certainly cannot be made to sit at the back of the bus, and no Supreme Court would allow laws mandating such to stand. There are plenty of ways around this, including the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment. Marriage is not the same, because (again) the freedom to engage in homosexual marriage is not a right long enjoyed. By contrast, black folks have a way around this by way of the Equal Protection clause of the 14th.

Perhaps then, I should have said a right so basic as the right to equal treatment under the law, freedom to live as we choose, the persuit of happiness, or freedom from the religious views of others being forced upon us. However, I guess when I said marriage specifically, I was speaking not necessarily of the rights listed to us in the Constitution, but the rights that you and I believe each person should be entitled to.

The problem here is that, no matter what my philsophical stance may be (and largely it agrees with everything you said), the Supreme Court is not free to interpret that philosophy into the Constitution and I can’t even imagine that there is anyone in the world who isn’t horrified at the prospect of the Supreme Court being explicitly allowed to read whatever philosophy they want into the Constitution (for you liberals, think about the New Deal Court and its imagining such things as freedom of contract so that it could knock down workers’ rights legislation - how comfortable does that make you?). So we’re back to the Amendment process, which I endorse.

Right, but I’m not sure I understand why you think that is a worse idea than allowing the communities to decide for themselves.

I don’t. I think, as it stands, that communities have the right to decide for themselves. If an amendment were passed, that position would change. And I don’t know if I think either is necessarily better than the other, as I support giving homosexuals the freedom to marry.

This may be why you’re a fool though. I know no conservatives who think Texas has the right to make blacks sit in the back of the bus. In fact, I know no preeminent conservative philosophical positions that would allow for such a situation. Certainly no religion would allow this. Libertarianism does not allow this. Neoconservatism does not allow this. Even Edmund Burke might have been appalled at such a suggestion.

And might I remind you that the Republican Party was formed more or less on the basis that blacks have the same fundamental rights as whites? Jim Crow laws were all enacted by Democrats. Segregation was enforced by Democrats. Just because the Democratic Party has flip-flopped from racist atavism to neo-racist atavism does not implicate the GOP, which is by far the largest conservative organization in the United States (i.e., a good place to find “most conservatives”)

Conservatives may see those cases as advancing liberalism, but I think we can all agree that making birth control illegal is crazy talk. Almost as crazy as anti-sodomy laws. The Roe result may indeed support your claim, as abortion rulings are controversial enough to go either way. The others, however, were certainly needlessly restricting the rights of individuals, and I would hope (though probably in vain) that even a conservative Supreme Court would have seconded those rulings. There are some rights that the community simply should not be allowed to take away from its people.

And I know of many conservatives throughout this nation’s glorious history that did like the idea of making blacks sit at the back of the bus, pick cotton, etc. In fact, I’d even say they loved the idea. And they defended this great and fantastic idea on the basis of state’s rights to choose, which is where I have my problem. Because any person should be able to live in any part of this country that they choose, and be free of state sponsered racism and prejudice (there’s no controlling the yokels who think they’s better cuz they’s got the white skin). A black family shouldn’t have to leave a town in the South simply because their schools suck, transportation treats them like steerage, and they can’t sit at a lunch counter…no matter what the typically conservative based ‘states rights’ argument may be. It’s just silly.

And talk about the Supreme Court fucking things up: how about seperate but equal? Wow! GOOD IDEA!

Because, you know, a drinking fountain is a drinking fountain (even if the Negro one is broken, rusting, and spits out warm brown water), and a school is a school (even if the Negro school is 50 miles away from someone’s house, doesn’t teach modern science, and is funded solely through community bake sales).

And I wasn’t arguing party. I was arguing conservativism vs. liberalism. I wouldn’t call those Democrats liberals. They just hated Lincoln…so refused to put themselves into his party.

I really wish at least one person here would realize that there is more than two schools of political thought. It’s not a line, where you go from Crazy conservative to crazy liberal with varying degrees of left or right. It’s more like those statistical hexagons seen in video games and the likes, only with more corners.

I agree, sort of…although I don’t know many liberals in the civil rights era calling for more segregation…

Unless it’s the reverse-segregation ‘special interests’ things, like hate crime laws and how workplaces with only whites are labeled as racist even if the applicants are selected without a face-to-face interview.

And certainly not all conservatives are asking for it either.

A better example is how socialists are labeled as liberal. You can’t get more structured and controlled than Socialism, except hardcore communism. How is that ‘liberal’?

The Republican party has also done a spectacular flip-flop. Putting it forward as some unchanging bastion of good just isn’t sea-worthy.

Contrast: The Democratic Party owes no allegiance to the beliefs of Mr. Jefferson.