1
   

The "Passion" of The U.S. Constitution...again

 
 
Reply Thu 26 Feb, 2004 02:08 pm
I have Many "Liberal" or "Progressive" political feelings but amending the U.S. Constitution is not one of them. The Constitution is, after all, the American "Gospel" that the U.S. Supreme Court (the St Peter/God level of the American justice system) bases the legitimacy of its decisions upon.

This is very serious stuff. Rulings of the USSC directly affect the lives and liberty of U.S. citizens, not in the foggy realms of the hereafter, but right now in "this life". Therefore, I sense wrongness involved with Bush's call for a Constitutional Amendment banning "Gay Marriage". I smell a pandering rat whose odor emanates from the incumbent's desire to gather votes from the religious right (RR). Intertwined with this olfactory repugnance is the age old attempt to "save us" from ourselves via legislated behavior imperatives.

The passion involving both the suffering and intense conviction we see from the RR comes from deeply held religious beliefs that then evolve into this group's morals. Now we see, again, the effort to impose this group's morals upon all U.S. citizens with the ultimate attempt at legislating morality by amending the Constitution. This group is again trying to eliminate that very American concept of personal choice and tolerance of others that allows them to practice their own beliefs. Father, forgive them their short sightedness... but we need not.

The proposed amendment to prevent public U.S. Flag burning for the purpose of dissent was at best silly and at worst, well, unconstitutional. But what makes this attempt at amending the constitution so dangerous is that once an amendment this conceptually becomes the basis and foundation for a succession of laws similarly directed. Do we as U.S. citizens want to start down that slippery slope of ever decreasing personal liberties by creating such an instrument of intolerance towards others? From my limited readings and education I seem to remember the prophet Jesus proposing something quite different.

As I had mentioned on another forum this is really a matter for the states to decide at their level. This allows for the people of individual states to choose their own laws regarding the issue while allowing a more nuanced interpretation of the public's view on this matter. Critically, this method also allows for a more flexible forum if the citizens of the state change their minds, rather like many did towards "inter-racial" Marriage.

A deeper problem with the proposed amendment is that, as worded, it proscribes any state from even considering and addressing the issue. It demands that thoughtful resolution is no longer needed and, indeed may actually be illegal. In essence, we are not to "worry our pretty little heads" about it.

There is, of course, nothing wrong with making laws and amendments based upon morality but first we must ask the question: Whose morality becomes the standard? Is said morality to be based on a collection of 2000 year old documents that fit the legal definition of hearsay or, more properly, upon "Self Evident Truths" agreed upon by public debate and collective societal morals? Did we find a need to pass a Constitutional Amendment against the murder of individual private citizens?

Respectfully,

JM
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,030 • Replies: 8
No top replies

 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Feb, 2004 03:03 pm
As usual, well said.
0 Replies
 
Fedral
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Feb, 2004 03:24 pm
Re: The "Passion" of The U.S. Constitution...again
JamesMorrison wrote:

As I had mentioned on another forum this is really a matter for the states to decide at their level. This allows for the people of individual states to choose their own laws regarding the issue while allowing a more nuanced interpretation of the public's view on this matter.


While I personally think that our country should allow homosexuals to marry if they want to, I would like to point out a very important fact that the people who are in favor of this amendment keep pointing out.

There is, between states a law of 'reciprocity'. Which means that if you marry in Florida, any other state must recognize the validity of that marriage. So if you are married in Florida, Arizona must recognize it.

If you make a state by state law, even if Alabama votes against it, by law they will be required to recognize a homosexual marriage performed in California regardless of their own state law or beliefs.

THAT is what has the anti-gay marriage crowds panties in a wad.

JamesMorrison wrote:

There is, of course, nothing wrong with making laws and amendments based upon morality but first we must ask the question: Whose morality becomes the standard? Is said morality to be based on a collection of 2000 year old documents that fit the legal definition of hearsay or, more properly, upon "Self Evident Truths" agreed upon by public debate and collective societal morals? Did we find a need to pass a Constitutional Amendment against the murder of individual private citizens?

Respectfully,

JM


As we all know by the Prohibition Amendment, legislating morality works OH so well. Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
jespah
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Feb, 2004 03:35 pm
Generally, marriage rules have been considered to be the purview of the states, e. g. ages of consent. If the age of consent is lower in Tennessee than here in Mass. (I think it is, but I can't recall and sorry, but I don't have a moment to look it up and confirm), Mass. is still required to accept the Tenn. marriage as valid, and provide any financial benefits that result from that marriage (e. g. Social Security benefits, death benefits, application of the laws of intestacy, ability to file taxes jointly, ability to get onto the spouse's work benefits, etc.). That's the fear, I suppose, more than anything else.

It's all clothed in morality, but I bet a lot of it is a ploy to keep from handing out the monetary perks that go along with marriage.
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Feb, 2004 04:20 pm
For what it's worth one of the last amendments had to to do with congressional pay, so once again it's proven that politics is about interest not morals.
0 Replies
 
JamesMorrison
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Feb, 2004 06:38 pm
Fedral

Quote:
"There is, between states a law of 'reciprocity'. Which means that if you marry in Florida, any other state must recognize the validity of that marriage. So if you are married in Florida, Arizona must recognize it."


I am ignorant of this concept. Am I to understand that all laws passed by a state must be honored by all other states? I know for a fact that a physician licensed to practice in one state is not automatically free to do so in any other state. Does the state's law, originally passed (first in time), take precedence over all others? Capital punishment? How does this work? I sense some type of interstate cooperation to promote commerce "thing".

It has been implied that insurance carriers may benefit from this amendment and that is a good point but I suspect they will find a way to pass on the cost like they always have. This seems more a political football. Might be interesting to see if this easier choice by Bush is just as short sighted as his cop out on a real decision about stem cell research was...might this turn more people against him then merely mollifies those already willing to vote for him? Is the religious right really going to promote, say, Ralph Nader for the Republican Presidential Nomination if W. refuses to acknowledge their demands?

JM
0 Replies
 
pistoff
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Feb, 2004 08:25 pm
Uh....no.
The Right Wing christians won't be voting for Nader because he has publicaly stated that he does not oppose Marriage between consenting adults of legal age.

The Relgious Right opposes Homosexuality and deems those that have same sex relations, sinners. What would their Jesus have to say about this?
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Feb, 2004 08:29 pm
Quote:
What would their Jesus have to say about this?

Hey, sombody wanna get me off this stupid CROSS???!!!??? Mad
0 Replies
 
pistoff
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Feb, 2004 10:44 pm
Uh....no.
According to the writings in the bible Jesus was volunteered by his father to be crucified. A weird father in my view but that's what the folks that wrote reported. I also read that Jesus uttered, "Lord, why have you forsaken me?" hwile Jesus was hanging on the cross. Don't know what he meant by that.

I am wondering, according to the teachings of Jesus in the bible, what his view of homsexual marriage would have been? Isn't that a relevant question for Christians, since quite few of them are anti-homosexual? Do these Christians believe that deceased homosexuals would be dispatched to the Christian notion of Hell?

Personaly, I believe Christians that condem homosexuals are not real followers of the Christ that they claim to believe in.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » The "Passion" of The U.S. Constitution...again
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 4.44 seconds on 12/14/2024 at 10:59:07