Reply
Thu 19 Aug, 2004 02:39 pm
The Republican Policy Committee is scrambling to thwart the power of the United States Supreme Court from issuing a decision on the same-sex marriage issue.
See
S.J. Res. 40 — The Federal Marriage Amendment
The Republican Policy Committee is scrambling to find support for a constitutional amendment to "define and protect traditional marriage." The Republican Party believes "activist" lawyers and judges will impose same-sex marriage on all the states and a failure to enact a federal constitutional amendment will result in national, court-imposed same sex marriage. The Republicans fear that the United States Supreme Court will enforce the due process and equal protection clauses of the United States constitution:
Quote:Ultimately, the Supreme Court Will Be Asked to Rule
In the not-too-distant future, the legal activists who are managing this challenge to traditional marriage laws will decide that they are ready for the “big case” – the case before the U.S. Supreme Court. They will tell the Supreme Court that the confusion in the states demands a national solution. They will argue that we are one nation, that we cannot long function with such fundamentally inconsistent understandings of marriage. And when that day comes — when the U.S. Supreme Court is presented with the opportunity to rule traditional marriage laws unconstitutional — it is very possible the Court will side not with the oft-surveyed views of the American people, but, rather, will find a constitutional reason to say the people have been wrong all this time.
GOD-FORBID if the U.S. Supreme Court upholds the Supreme Law of the Land and requires due process and equal protection under the laws for homosexuals! GOD-FORBID that homosexuals are waging a "campaign" for protection of their liberty (privacy) interests and equal rights in AMERICA--of all places. They are succeeding throughout the nation (just like the blacks did before them) and the republicans must STOP THEM before discrimination against homosexuals becomes unlawful!
Is this truly America? This RPC document is shameful.
Is DOMA constitutional?
The Republican Policy Committee acknowledges that DOMA does not trump the United States Constitution:
Quote:Some argue that the Defense of Marriage Act, passed overwhelmingly in 1996, is sufficient to block the spread of same-sex marriage. First, DOMA does not stop one state court from overriding the wishes of the citizens of that state and recognizing an out-of-state same-sex marriage. Second, DOMA does not prevent state or federal courts from redefining marriage. In short, federal DOMA does not trump the U.S. Constitution. That law is already being challenged in Florida and Washington federal courts, in each case on the basis that the U.S. Constitution’s equal protection and due process clauses mandate a ruling that DOMA is unconstitutional.
http://rpc.senate.gov/_files/L69FMarriageAmdtSD.pdf (page 6)
On Tuesday, I understand that the federal court in the Washington case upheld DOMA against a constitutional challenge. I am looking for the decision and will post a link when I find it. If so, a petition for a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court is the next step. This action was brought by a homosexual couple who were married in Canada and were filing for bankruptcy under federal law as a married couple, so the issue of whether Congress may legislatively override the privileges and immunities clause is not be presented in this case.
Does anyone have any information on the Florida case that is challenging DOMA?
Still looking for link
DOMA
Quote:Washington judge: No fundamental right to marry
Meanwhile, a federal judge in Washington state backed the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act. The decision, made public Tuesday, is the first to address the constitutionality of the federal law, which defines marriage as a "legal union between one man and one woman."
Two American women, Lee and Ann Kandu, were married in British Columbia and filed a joint bankruptcy petition in Tacoma a short time later. Their petition was opposed by the Justice Department on grounds that the federal marriage law prohibited it.
Federal bankruptcy Judge Paul B. Snyder found the bankruptcy code allows spouses to file joint petitions, but the marriage law specifies that 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex.
Snyder found that gays and lesbians have no fundamental right to marriage and that the 1996 law does not violate the equal protection clause of the Constitution by allowing members of the opposite sex to wed but not members of the same sex.
Does anyone have a link to the federal court decision made public on Tuesday?
Found case
Here's the link to the (Western District of Washington) Federal Bankruptcy Case:
In re Kandu
This will probably be appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and from there to the U.S. Supreme Court. It's possible that other cases will wind up at the Supreme Court about the same time--maybe the cases will be consoldiated. It will take years, I suppose before we get a U.S. Supreme Court decision concerning the constitutionality of DOMA.
Why do you try and make a connection between gay marriage and the civil rights of the 60's? Being gay and being black are not the same issues. You are degrading the civil rights movement when you do this.
huh?
Baldimo wrote:Why do you try and make a connection between gay marriage and the civil rights of the 60's? Being gay and being black are not the same issues. You are degrading the civil rights movement when you do this.
I am against discrimination regardless of the form it takes or the group it attacks. I am not degrading the civil rights movement. All persons are entitled to due process and equal protection under the law.
However, I believe the Republican Policy Committee is degrading the Constitution (and degrading America) in its blatant attempt to deprive an entire class of individuals of due process and equal protection under the law.
Baldimo wrote:Why do you try and make a connection between gay marriage and the civil rights of the 60's? Being gay and being black are not the same issues. You are degrading the civil rights movement when you do this.
This is no degredation of the civil rights movement, it is a mirror of it. 40 US states, at one point, held interracial marriage to be illegal, immoral and unnatural. In the words of one Virginia court judge...
Quote:"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."
Popular opinion was against legalizing interracial marriage, and it wasn't until 1948 that the California Supreme Court declared such a ban unconstitutional.
As I have said many times before, race is not the same as sexual preference. Society shouldn't have to change because of people's choice in life, gay people can still be married but not to the same sex.
Can it be proven that homosexuality isn't a choice?
And blacks and whites can still be married, but not to each other. Clearly, the race of the person you marry is a matter of choice.
Society constantly changes because of people's evolving choices in life. We chose, eventually, to include those hysterical women in the voting process. We chose, eventually, to acknowledge that people of color ought not to be owned like cattle. We chose, eventually, to allow "jazz" to be played in Carnegie Hall. We chose, eventually, to allow Jews into the country club.
You really ought to investigate the logic behind your assumption that you, a heterosexual, are the victim here.
It's been pointed out to you before, Baldimo, that it does not matter in the least whether or not someone "chooses" to be homosexual. It's none of your damned business. The mere existence of homosexuals does you no harm. Marriage between homosexuals does you no harm. The lack of genuine equity in society harms us all.
You know Mr. Mountie, when the freaked-out tight-arses can't handle these situations publicly, they do themselves the most harm. The Daughters of the American Revolution (why does it suddenly stink in my apartment?) would not let Marian Anderson sing in Constitution Hall, so she sang on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. Although the DAR was never the big deal they themselves believed, this was the beginning of the long slide which placed them side-by-side with the Daughters of the Confederacy as a popular women's group.
Race is not a choice, and people like myself don't see the race that my wife is. I see a beautiful woman and nothing else. I didn't choose her because of her race but rather because she was a woman and whe was intelligent. I married her because she was a woman plain and simple.
We can prove that hetrosexuality is natural, can the same be said for homosexuality? Is it genetic and can it be proven?
Read about
Bonobos for the question of whether or not homosexuality occurs in nature, Baldimo. It always comes around the the issue of what is "unnatural," doesn't it?
"Perhaps the bonobo's most typical sexual pattern, undocumented in any other primate, is genito-genital rubbing (or GG rubbing) between adult females. One female facing another clings with arms and legs to a partner that, standing on both hands and feet, lifts her off the ground. The two females then rub their genital swellings laterally together, emitting grins and squeals that probably reflect orgasmic experiences. (Laboratory experiments on stump- tailed macaques have demonstrated that women are not the only female primates capable of physiological orgasm.)
"Male bonobos, too, may engage in pseudocopulation but generally perform a variation. Standing back to back, one male briefly rubs his scrotum against the buttocks of another. They also practice so-called penis-fencing, in which two males hang face to face from a branch while rubbing their erect penises together.
"The diversity of erotic contacts in bonobos includes sporadic oral sex, massage of another individual's genitals and intense tongue-kissing. Lest this leave the impression of a pathologically oversexed species, I must add, based on hundreds of hours of watching bonobos, that their sexual activity is rather casual and relaxed. It appears to be a completely natural part of their group life. Like people, bonobos engage in sex only occasionally, not continuously. Furthermore, with the average copulation lasting 13 seconds, sexual contact in bonobos is rather quick by human standards."
Why don't you just be honest for once, and acknowledge the christian hatred you direct at homosexuals, hmm?
I knew this would happen. It is only logical. That is why those on the extreme right are pushing for a constitutional admendment because they know that if Supreme court has to rule on it now, there is not any reason to deny them the right to marry. We simply don't go by the Bible and it is as simple as that.
I don't think most ordinary people regardless on how they come down on the gay issue is going to want to actually put in the constitution anything that is actually going to deny mature consenting adults the right to marry who they want.
Quote:Why don't you just be honest for once, and acknowledge the christian hatred you direct at homosexuals, hmm?
Oh, good luck with that one Revel.
Homosexuals are one of the few groups Christians are allowed to hate.... so taking that away from them will be a difficult struggle, for sure...
I think the justifications that people look for in order to support their bigotry are some of the most entertaining bullsh*t I have ever seen.
Cycloptichorn
Just like Christians are one of the few groups that liberals are allowed to hate.
Oh, EVERYONE is allowed to hate Christians, not just liberals.
Cycloptichorn
Don't get your panties in a twist McG--i don't personally hate christians, i simply despise the imposition of their superstitions on us all. This is an equal opportunity contempt--i'd feel the same way about any other religious group demanding to implement their agenda in a pluralistic, secular republic.
Baldimo
Baldimo wrote:As I have said many times before, race is not the same as sexual preference. Society shouldn't have to change because of people's choice in life, gay people can still be married but not to the same sex.
Can it be proven that homosexuality isn't a choice?
I doubt you have an open mind that would consider anything but your biased opinion regarding the cause of homosexuality. Do you have any credible scientific and medical proof that homosexuality is a choice?
Why do you think the State should decide whom one may love and want to marry? If you hold that the answer is yes, then why shouldn't it also apply to heterosexuals. Do you want the State to decide whom you may love and want to marry? That would meet the requirements of "equal protection" under the Constitution, wouldn't it?
BBB
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace