We cannot let this happen!!!

[Guest]

Those of you who frequent the General Board at Lit will know that I make a lot of political posts. I do realize this is the GLBT board, and no, it's not my objective to bash Bush here (no matter how much I would like to do so). However, I read the following and felt it may be of interest to readers of this board. Really, this should be of everyone's interest, but I know if I post it on the GB people will tell me to "fuck off".

I believe there is still something we can do in order to prevent this: Write letters to members of government, send emails, organize meetings, rallies, etc. It's not too late to try to prevent this from happening. If we sit back and do nothing we'll be screwed (and not in a good, sexy sort of a way).

Rove: Bush Serious About Gay Marriage Ban
The Associated Press

Monday 08 November 2004

Rove says Bush will push for Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage in second term.

President Bush in his second term "absolutely" would push for a constitutional amendment that says marriage consists only of the union of a man and a woman, White House political adviser Karl Rove said.

Bush believes states can deal with the issue of civil unions between gay people, an arrangement that if enacted would grant same-sex partners most or all the rights available to married couples, Rove said on "Fox News Sunday."

But a national ban on same-sex marriage is the only way to make sure "activist judges" don't redefine marriage, he said.

As for the Supreme Court, Rove said Bush would nominate only judges who would "strictly apply the law, strictly interpret the Constitution" from the bench.

"He views judges as the impartial umpires," Rove said. "They shouldn't be activist legislators who just happen to wear robes and never face election, ... (who) feel free to pursue their own personal or political agenda."

Rove said Sen. Arlen Specter, the Republican in line to head the Senate Judiciary Committee, has assured the president that he would make certain that all appellate nominees receive a prompt hearing and reach the Senate floor.

 

[anne27]

I am afraid it's already happened. Bush was re-elected and the conservative religious right is about to rule the country.

I am a woman married to a man and a mother of two, so I have nothing to gain by fighting them but equality for my fellow human beings. That is important to me and I am fighting. I have written to all my state representatives and have yet to receive a single response back.

It's disheartening and disgusting and I fear that nothing good is going to come for my GLBT brethren for at least 4 years.

 

[CJontherocks]

I've been reading the Constitution, looking for something about marriage being addressed in it at all. So far, here are some interesting things I've read...


Article. IV.

Section. 1.

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Section. 2.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.


Now let's look at the Bill of Rights...

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

I'm still looking at the other 17 Amendments... will get back when I've found any verbiage in the Contitution or its Amendments that speaks to marriage being a concern of the Government.

 

[Netzach]

Maybe it's just me sticking my head in the sand, but to me, Gay Marriage is kind of like the NEA. The totally freaked out Cons NEED this issue alive to look like they are doing something.

 

[CJontherocks]

Okay, I'm back. Didn't find even a hint or suggestion that the President, the Congress, or the Supreme Court has any interest or reserved privilege to intrude upon the lives and bonds between its citizens.

(By the way, I read some interesting articles along the way about the US Supreme Court that speaks to why Dubya wants so badly to embed some allies into it before this proposed amendment goes up for judicial review on Constitutionality.)

Personally, I don't think this proposal (shall we just call it a scheme?) could possibly be ratified and pass judicial review. But if it does get off the ground, I hope our Senators and Representatives know what to do.

 

[Queersetti]

I've been reading the Constitution, looking for something about marriage being addressed in it at all. So far, here are some interesting things I've read...


Article. IV.

Section. 1.

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Section. 2.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.


Now let's look at the Bill of Rights...

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

I'm still looking at the other 17 Amendments... will get back when I've found any verbiage in the Contitution or its Amendments that speaks to marriage being a concern of the Government.

The Full faith and Credit Clause stipulates that each state recognize the public acts of the other states.

In practice, however, it has often been ignored. For instance, for many years, many other states refused to recognize the validity of Nevada divorces.

Nonetheless, the Constitution, as written, clearly gives each state the power to determine what constitutes marriage within it's jurisdiction, and mandates that the other states respect and honor those parameters.

Hence, the rights insistence on a Constitutional amendment on the subject. Unfortunately, an amendment would not be subject to judicial review.

 

[CJontherocks]

The Full faith and Credit Clause stipulates that each state recognize the public acts of the other states.

In practice, however, it has often been ignored. For instance, for many years, many other states refused to recognize the validity of Nevada divorces.

Nonetheless, the Constitution, as written, clearly gives each state the power to determine what constitutes marriage within it's jurisdiction, and mandates that the other states respect and honor those parameters.

Hence, the rights insistence on a Constitutional amendment on the subject. Unfortunately, an amendment would not be subject to judicial review.

Thanks for the insight, Q. That's what I read in Article 4 as well, but I'm no legal professional. But I should think (hope?) any amendment must pass some sort of Constitutionality test, no? I mean, the Constitution does not grant the United States the power to regulate marriage laws, nor does it prohibit the States from doing so. So the 10th Amendment wins, doesn't it?

 

[Queersetti]

Thanks for the insight, Q. That's what I read in Article 4 as well, but I'm no legal professional. But I should think (hope?) any amendment must pass some sort of Constitutionality test, no? I mean, the Constitution does not grant the United States the power to regulate marriage laws, nor does it prohibit the States from doing so. So the 10th Amendment wins, doesn't it?

Unfortunately, no. An amendment that limited certain rights would override the 10th Amendment. A gay same sex marriage prohibition would, if added to the constitution, be a "power delegated to the United sates" and the 10th would be superceded. Consider the 18th Amendment, which prohibited the sale of alcohol. That was a case in which powers previously assumed to be the purview of the states were taken by the federal government.

 

[Regis2001]

Gah.

This whole issue has reached such a level of repetitiveness (sp?) that I can't even bring myself to feel outraged by it any more.

So the Bushies want to outlaw Gay Marriage. They've been keeping this shit going since day one, and I'm still uncertain whether or not it's going to ever be acted on. It's entirely possible that they'll just keep on with the same old bait-and-switch tactics that politicians use to confuse their uncertain supporters. They bring it up, remind the right-wingers why they voted for them in the first place, then drop it when something bigger comes up. Repeat as necessary.

Of course, worst case scenario, they pass the damn stupid amendment. Damn them.

Actually, worst case scenario, they pass the Amendment and invade England. Now I come to think of it, that sounds a lot worse.

Have a nice day, insofar as that's possible...

 

[Guest]

Unfortunately, no. An amendment that limited certain rights would override the 10th Amendment. A gay same sex marriage prohibition would, if added to the constitution, be a "power delegated to the United sates" and the 10th would be superceded. Consider the 18th Amendment, which prohibited the sale of alcohol. That was a case in which powers previously assumed to be the purview of the states were taken by the federal government.

Thank you for your post. I'm afraid you're right about this (as far as I can tell-- but then I have no trained experience in interpreting the law).

Seriously, I think that if the Shrub administration wants to ban gay marriage it will find a way to do so (possibly the way listed above) and claim it to be a perfectly Constitutional move. After all, as mentioned, at a certain point alcohol was banned, at a certain point only white, land-owning men were considered "citizens" (and therefore were the only ones who had the rights and priveleges of citizenship), etc. The same flexibility which makes the Constitution great is also the same which allows it to be twisted according to the will of certain groups.

 

[CJontherocks]

Thank you for your post. I'm afraid you're right about this (as far as I can tell-- but then I have no trained experience in interpreting the law).

Seriously, I think that if the Shrub administration wants to ban gay marriage it will find a way to do so (possibly the way listed above) and claim it to be a perfectly Constitutional move. After all, as mentioned, at a certain point alcohol was banned, at a certain point only white, land-owning men were considered "citizens" (and therefore were the only ones who had the rights and priveleges of citizenship), etc. The same flexibility which makes the Constitution great is also the same which allows it to be twisted according to the will of certain groups.

Yes, but for the most part, amendments to the Constitution have been about expanding rights, not taking them away. With the exception of prohibition (which was at last repealed), each amendment has been a progression into forward thinking. This proposed amendment would be a step backwards, specifically excluding a group of people from enjoying a right in the pursuit of happiness. No, I'm definitely against it, registered Republican and all. I'm not gay, and I don't see myself ever having an exclusive romantic relationship with a man. But this is unjust, unwarranted and in my opinion completely outside the purview of the US Government. No, I'm against it. Definitely against it.

Is there a hidden political agenda? I don't know. Mr. Clinton was famous for sending up balloons such as this to guage public opinion, and then going whichever way the wind blew. And I'm sure if we examine some other administrations, we'll see much of the same. In the meantime, though, we should let our Congressional representatives know which way the wind blows in our world.

The way I see it, people didn't vote Kerry in because although they liked his stance on some of the issues, they just didn't feel confident enough in him to come out in droves to carry him into the White House. But this is an issue I think needs to be addressed. I agree that we should write to our representatives, and hope they'll listen and act. I will be letting my feelings be known.

 

[Guest]

Yes, but for the most part, amendments to the Constitution have been about expanding rights, not taking them away. With the exception of prohibition (which was at last repealed), each amendment has been a progression into forward thinking. This proposed amendment would be a step backwards, specifically excluding a group of people from enjoying a right in the pursuit of happiness. No, I'm definitely against it, registered Republican and all. I'm not gay, and I don't see myself ever having an exclusive romantic relationship with a man. But this is unjust, unwarranted and in my opinion completely outside the purview of the US Government. No, I'm against it. Definitely against it.

Is there a hidden political agenda? I don't know. Mr. Clinton was famous for sending up balloons such as this to guage public opinion, and then going whichever way the wind blew. And I'm sure if we examine some other administrations, we'll see much of the same. In the meantime, though, we should let our Congressional representatives know which way the wind blows in our world.

The way I see it, people didn't vote Kerry in because although they liked his stance on some of the issues, they just didn't feel confident enough in him to come out in droves to carry him into the White House. But this is an issue I think needs to be addressed. I agree that we should write to our representatives, and hope they'll listen and act. I will be letting my feelings be known.

I agree with you wholeheartedly. And yes, I think we need to take action to prevent our Constitution from being ammended into a backward, bigoted set of rules.

I'd guess that the majority of the people who voted for Bush did so because they are Chrisitian, and Bush's talk about "faith" and fighting evil, etc, motivated them to vote for him. I'd say the Shrub knows that he gets lots of support from the religious right. Consider this quote from Aristotle:
"A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider to be God-fearing and pious."
--- Aristotle, 343 B.C.

Basically, this is how Bush gets poor people to support his agenda for benefitting the rich, for perpetuating a war in which the majority of soldiers being sent off to battle are from poor families, etc. It's because they think he's a good Christian man, and so they voted for him even though he's screwing them over. Scary, but plausible.

Regardless of why/how Bush got re-elected, we are faced with the types of changes that his administration will try to force upon us. As you said, we definitely ought to do a lot of letter writing, as well as organizing and speaking out.

 

[Guest]

bumping in honor of today's festive occasion.

 

[BlueEyesInLevis]

Since you like qouting the the Constitution so much, try reading the 10th Amendment.

 

[CJontherocks]

Since you like qouting the the Constitution so much, try reading the 10th Amendment.

Uhhh... weren't we talking about the 10th Amendment? Seems to me a right of the States, guaranteed by the original Bill of Rights, should not ever be rescinded. Should we allow the federal government the authority to take back the 1st Amendment as well?

Somewhere, surely, there is an attorney (who is not seeking, contemplating or currently holding an elected office) who could defeat this proposal.

 

[John Doe]

By definition anything in the Constitution is constitutional, so any Amendments ratified would become constitutional. Therefore it is logically impossible to consider the constitutionality of something before it becomes part of the Constitution.

That being said, it is extremely difficult to ratify any amendment (and rightly so), let alone one so divisive.

 

[CJontherocks]

By definition anything in the Constitution is constitutional, so any Amendments ratified would become constitutional. Therefore it is logically impossible to consider the constitutionality of something before it becomes part of the Constitution.

I guess I hadn't looked at it that way... it almost makes sense, in an eerie kinda way. There's a word for that. Is it paradox?

 

[sexational]

Where are income taxes in the constitution?They tax you anyway.

 

[CJontherocks]

Where are income taxes in the constitution?They tax you anyway.

Because, by gosh, the government wants to guarantee you your inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of their happiness!

 

[John Doe]

I guess I hadn't looked at it that way... it almost makes sense, in an eerie kinda way. There's a word for that. Is it paradox?

No I don't think it's a paradox. A paradox is a self-contradictory statement that at first seems true or an argument that makes self-contradictory points based on logical deduction and established premises. An example of a paradox would be this:

You build a time machine, go back in time and kill your grandfather. As a result you are never born and therefore you never build a time machine and you never kill your grandfather, so your grandfather lives and you are eventually born to build the time machine and kill your grandfather.

That's known as the grandfather paradox (I don't know how these scientists come up with such silly names for things).

I don't know what else to call your thing though. Eerie is good.

Where are income taxes in the constitution?They tax you anyway.

At least two places, Article I. Section II and the XIV Amendment.

 

[The Mutt]

It is important to remember that all the same arguments used against gay marriage were used against racially-mixed marriages. (It's un-natural, it's against the Bible, it's against god, it will destroy the fabric of society, etc.)
But the Supreme Court ruled in Loving v Virginia that marriage is a basic civil right.

The Konservative Kristian Koalition wants a culture war. I say let's give 'em one.

 

[CJontherocks]

Where are income taxes in the constitution?They tax you anyway.

Oops... I read that wrong. I thought you said "why." Sorry.