The more things change...

When Europeans first came to this country, there was considerable intermarriage between European indentured servants and Black slaves. I would imagine these people felt a closeness due to their circumstances.

Of course, science has proved that there is no such thing as race from a biological stand point: that race is a social construct.

I do not think that people are running about, trying to garner support for close kin marriage or for what the Mormons call plural marriage.

What many people fail to understand is the nature of common law: the Normans went through AngloSaxon and perhaps even Celtic court decisions and laws to determine the custom of their new country. Hmmm? Does that sound like judges made law? They further fail to understand that gay marriage has been part of common law, in a quiet and subtle way. Go read a bridal registry at a store and you'll discover same sex couples have been registering for some time. Generally, they are married by sympathetic clergy.

Furthermore, most fail to admit that marriage is a contract designed to protect the financial interests of the parties to the contract. Period. There is no need for those parties to be of different sexes.

Great blast from the past
Good job showing how blatant prejudice was and is in this country. No legal leg to stand on here and now, however, especially after the 14th Amendment. Attacking gay marriage is attacking the Constitution. Notice how our "rulers" are treading carefully here. I hope you don't mind if I apply this insight in other places. Americans need all the awareness they can get at this time.

interesting ...

i gues that what is considered "sacred" about the institute of marriage has always been changing, all the time ...

Umba!

Welcome!

Was marriage ever banned in the states on religious grounds, mixed marriages ie. catholic and protestant, or jewish?

PDiddie, there you are. How are ya? Massy misses ya

Ceili: I'm sure there are examples, like Hebrew slaves and Egyptian blueblood, most likely, but I am not sure about that. I'm a Catholic and was supposed to marry only a Catholic girl according to my church, but of course, I thought that was ridiculous.

Nihm: Marriage has many "types" depending on the culture, and the institution goes back into the pagan world and beyond, probably. In the US, the colonial marriage barely resembled what marriage became with the Industrial Revolution, and again, in the 70s when women stood up for rights, and even now that both parents have to work, where only one did before. Originally they worked side by side. Then the man left for the factories, and the woman became trapped in the house. Then women could work, now both parents must work. Marriage has done nothing but change over time.

Marriage is an economic institution that protects the observers, but it also perpetuates consumption. The loss of revenues by state and federal government is the real concern here, although they will never admit it. Look at it this way, what would happen to the tax base if every two Americans paired off into a marriage to get the benefits married people get? Who would lose the most if such a thing were to happen?

The problem with the notion put forth in the article is that Bush has stated clearly that he has no intention of blocking the states' rights to offer same-gender unions and to attach thereto any rights and privileges they deem appropriate. The amendment Bush is suggesting would not "ban" gay unions, it would prevent them from being called "marriages". While I don't agree with the amendment, I do see that what it seeks to accomplish is not the relegation of gays to a second-class legal status as those complaining loudest suggest. (I also find most reporting and commentary on this, including that coming from conservatives, to be leaving out important key points. It seems that many want more debate rather than greater understanding and discussion.)

What a good question, Ceili? hmmm. Time to call Dr. Goggle...


Umbagog wrote:



I don't know what you mean by loss of revenues by the states or Federal governments, the effective tax rate for a married couple making approximating the same amounts of money is HIGHER then if they filed singly. You may be referring to the amount of entitlements due to a surviving spouse from Social Security. (Apologies to my overseas friends, I referring here solely to the tax/benefits system of the USA.) Presently even if two gay people have been living with each other as spouses for years there is no benefit or entitlement due the survivor of a partner. This became especially obvious during the recent AIDS crisis, partners of 15, 20 even 30 years had to apply for permission to see their lovers under hospital family only rules and recieved no death benefit even though their partner had been taxed for decades.

Joe

Joe, thanks for pointing this out. I was thinking the same thing.

I recently read most, haven't finished yet, Texas the really long long book.
I was surprised to see a great deal of the immegrants to Texas in the early days were Northern Irish Protestants, and according to the book, they brought a lot of their prejudices and bigotry over with them, especially when concerning Catholics. This is why I'm curious, I think at times, in certain places, religious mixed marriages were highly discouraged in Canada. I can't seem to find if they were banned by the government or not. Just curious if these same sentiments were common in the States or not.

Once again, we find a serious disconnect between Bush's public statements and his actual policies. The Federal Marriage Amendment (H.J. 56) states:

"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."

Note that the amendment not only prevents marriages between persons of the same sex, it prevents any government from conferring "the legal incidents" of marriage from being conferred upon same-sex couples. This doesn't simply prohibit gays from calling their unions "marriages," it prevents them from enjoying any marital rights. And despite the comforting rhetoric about allowing states to decide how they want to handle this issue, the amendment explicitly applies to state constitutions and laws.

In short, the only kind of civil unions permissible under the FMA will be unions that will not confer any rights upon the couple. Just empty gestures, as befits the president's empty rhetoric.

Joe - You and some others find a disconnect; still others do not.


Link: http://www.nationalreview.com/ponnuru/ponnuru200402230840.asp

It seems that the key language is "neither ... shall be construed to require". This is not a bar against legislating, but an admonition not to infer. If I say that something shall not be required, it does not mean that I have forbidden same. The argument put forth above--that this is intended to bar action by judges but not by legislatures--seems pretty reasonable and logical to me. Legislatures don't construe laws, they write them. Judges construe, and it seems logical that this language is intended to keep them from legislating from the bench in this matter.

In fact, it seems to me that any other interpretation would have to start with the intention of looking to find something bad here. Unless the words "neither ... shall be construed to require" mean something different to you, I don't see how anyone could reasonably argue that they mean a state legislature can't pass any law it chooses regarding the creation of same-gender civil unions (or civil unions that are blind on the issue of gender; the best solution in my book).

So no, I find no disconnect here, and I honestly think that if you gave some rational, unbiased consideration to the language you cited, you'd be forced to acknowledge that it doesn't sound remotely like a bar to legislation. Or do the phrases "I don't require that you" and "I won't let you" mean the same thing to you? :wink:

Kudos on bringing the actual language to my attention. I hadn't seen it before and I enjoyed being challenged to think about what it means and why it was written as it is.

I'll see your National Review, and raise you a PFAW and a FAIR.

PFAW: "In practice, this amendment would prevent any state from extending equal marriage rights to same-sex couples and could possibly invalidate domestic partner and civil union laws that provide some measure of protection to same-sex couples and their families."

FAIR: "Some legal scholars point out that the "nor state or federal law" clause would make it difficult for states to pass any civil unions legislation for gay couples.... The Washington Post (2/14/04) devoted a whole article to the topic, reporting that "the amendment's possible interpretations are a matter of furious debate among constitutional scholars and political activists, with some contending that it would allow Vermont-style civil unions and others saying it would not." The Post noted that two of the amendment's authors "contend that the opening sentence also would forbid some kinds of civil unions," though others aren't so sure."


This is a rather simplistic view of how legislation works. Legislation is always open to judicial interpretation; the moment that a court is called upon to construe the language of a civil unions statute, the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA) would tell the judge: "you cannot interpret that legislation as requiring that the same rights granted to married couples be granted to civil partners.

Let's take an example. Suppose Illinois passes a law that says "civil unions are recognized, and partners in a civil union shall have all the rights of married persons under the law of this state." Civil partners Bert and Ernie then seek to file their federal income taxes jointly (something that married couples are permitted to do, but which is not an option available to unmarried couples). The IRS refuses to allow them to file a joint tax return, saying that they aren't married. Bert and Ernie sue, claiming that the Illinois statute grants them all the rights of a married couple. How should the court, looking at the statute in the light of the FMA, rule in this case?

Well, I don't know. Furthermore, I don't think the supporters of the FMA know -- or, at least, if they know they're not willing to tell (it's their own "don't ask, don't tell" policy). That's because the outcome would quite possibly be that the court, faced with a constitutional mandate forbidding it to construe a state statute as requiring the conferral of marital rights on civil partners, would say that Bert and Ernie are out of luck, despite the fact that the legislation clearly states that civil partners should have those rights.

As far as I can tell, the FMA sets up a situation much like that of blacks under the Dred Scott decision, where Chief Justice Taney said that blacks "had no rights which the white man was bound to respect." In the same way, the FMA creates a situation where civil partners will have no rights which the courts are bound to respect: indeed, the courts would be constitutionally barred from respecting their rights.


In terms of the way the law works, the two are roughly the same.


Well, I certainly wouldn't want you to give your opinions about some piece of legislation that you hadn't actually read.

Joe - Sorry, no sale. You complain that this might bar states from giving what rights they choose, then offer an example where Bert and Ernie might be barred from filing a joint FEDERAL return. Whether they can or cannot is a matter for FEDERAL legislation. (I'd be fine with them being able to.) There is clearly a difference between the amendment reading that it does not compel certain action and it reading that it does not allow that action. Your assertion that these are equivalent in a legal sense, is absurd.

Well, that last statement makes it quite evident that you're not a lawyer, Scrat, but are you married? Is anyone you know married? Do you know anyone who was married pursuant to a federal law?

Probably not. The fact is that there is no federal marriage law (except for the DOMA, which is of questionable validity and doesn't authorize marriages, and maybe some regulations for the Marianas Islands or other possessions). The federal government simply considers anyone married pursuant to state law to be married for purposes of federal law.

That's the way things work now, and that's the way things would continue to work under the FMA. The only difference would be that the states would not be allowed to define marriage in any way other than the union of one man and one woman, nor would states be allowed to extend the benefits incident to marital status to civil partners. In other words, the IRS today must recognize valid Illinois marriages as valid for purposes of federal law, and permit Illinois married couples to file joint returns. Under the FMA, however, the IRS would be under no requirement to permit civil partners to file joint returns. Bert and Ernestine get to file joint returns; Bert and Ernie are out of luck.

Now, of course, the Congress could amend the tax code to allow civil partners to file joint returns. But, under the FMA, Congress could not keep the tax code the way it is (which says that only married couples can file joint returns) and extend that particular "incident of marriage" to civil partners.

JFC - I never wrote "federal marriage law". CLEARLY this would be tax legislation or written into the tax code. Nice straw man. Do you make them to sell, or just for fun?

You really are ready to twist the Earth off its axis rather than acknowledge reality in this, aren't you?

I'll go over this v e r y s l o w l y so that you can follow it, Scrat:

Only married couples can file joint income tax returns.

The federal tax code does not have a definition of "husband and wife" or "married couple."

Instead, the IRS considers anyone who is legally married under state law to be married for the purposes of the tax code.

Currently, anyone married pursuant to state law is automatically entitled to file a joint income tax return.

That's because, as of now, the right to file a joint return is a "benefit" incident to marital status.

Under the FMA, the partners in a civil union would not be considered "married."

Therefore, they could not require the IRS to permit them to file a joint return.

That's because the FMA says that no "federal law shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That will conclude the lesson for today, Scrat. For homework, you should read this site and prepare a report on the "straw man fallacy." From your statement above, it is obvious that you don't understand this concept any better than you understand the implications of the FMA.

Joe - Your condescending tone and insults don't strengthen a failing argument.

You argue that the federal tax code in its present form won't work for these people, as if the code couldn't or wouldn't be changed if these unions became legal and common. The tax code or legislation involved would likely be modified to allow persons in civil unions to file jointly, and there is NOTHING in the amendment that would prevent such a change.

As the conversation has demonstrated thus far, all this hassle is just going to be one big pain in the a$$.


Just let them get married and that'll be the end of it, for Chrissakes!