Marriage Amendment

[richlevy]

I sent this to the folks at www.marriagedebate.com. I don't know if it will be published, but I think it brings up a point I have not seen publicly.

'Gay Marriage Amendment' may not be primarily about gay marriage

The constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union between a 'man and
a woman' may have less to do with barring homosexuals and more of an impact
on federalizing marriage and establishing a national marriage age. Rules
vary from state to state, but many states permit marriage below the age of
18, usually with parental and/or judicial consent. The youngest age being
12 in Kansas, with some states setting no older limit in cases involving
pregnancy.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/Table_Marriage.htm

While individuals may vary in their level of maturity regardless of age, it
is a common policy to set minimum ages for many rights and privileges at the
state and federal level. There is a minimum age for selective service
registration, driver's license, drinking, voting etc. The theory is that
at certain ages, a sufficient number of individuals are able to exercise
these rights.

If we consider marriage to be a core institution in society, and if we also
consider the responsibility of the state and federal governments to fund
social programs which act as surrogates to children of failed marriages, the
desire of the government to involve itself in marriage is clear. This is
probably the real reason that there has been an initiative to provide
federal funds to promote marriage
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...e-grant_x.htm.

More marriages, however, will not necessarily solve the problem. It is also
an issue of quality over quantity. If we desire more stable marriages, it
would probably be in the governments best interests to gain control and
define a national minimum age for marriage, just as it does for voting
rights. Unfortunately, many religious groups approve of at least having the
option of marriages between individuals younger than 18, for cultural and
religious reasons. Politically, any previous attempt to
federalize marriage would be denounced and be impossible to implement. The
recent battle over same-sex marriage has changed the debate. Now, instead
of finding opposition from religious groups, they are now demanding a
constitutional amendment. The definition of 'man and woman' does not appear
to cause them any concern, as long as it denies same-sex unions.

The Constitution does not precisely define 'man and woman'. In most cases,
age limits in the Constituion are explicit. There are age limits on public
offices and on voting rights. The 26th amendment was added to specifically
address age when applied to voting rights. However, the Constitution is
open to interpretation and it would be up to the judicial branch to
determine if a 14-year-old was a man or woman. In addition, the fact that
there is a marriage amendment would signify that marriage can now be
controlled at a federal level, since the states have will have ceded at
least a portion of their 10th amendment rights by ratifying it.

If a marriage amendment is made to the Constitution defining marriage as
between a 'man and a woman', within a few years of it's ratification there
will be a federal minimum marriage age, which will affect social policy in
the United States.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Interesting point, Rich. If successful, I wonder if the legal definition of boy/man and girl/woman for the purposes of prosecution, will follow the marriage age?

[richlevy]

It official, the GOP will now happily mess over gay people to shore up flagging poll numbers.

From here.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush will promote a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage on Monday, the eve of a scheduled Senate vote on the cause that is dear to his conservative backers.

The amendment would prohibit states from recognizing same-sex marriages. To become law, the proposal would need two-thirds support in the Senate and House, and then be ratified by at least 38 state legislatures.

It stands little chance of passing the 100-member Senate, where proponents are struggling to get even 50 votes. Several Republicans oppose the measure, and so far only one Democrat -- Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska -- says he will vote for it.

The Senate Judiciary Committee approved the amendment on May 18 along party lines after a shouting match between a Democrat and the chairman, Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pennsylvania. He bid Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wisconsin, "good riddance" after Feingold declared his opposition to the amendment and his intention to leave the meeting.

Bush aides said he would be making his remarks on the subject Monday.

A slim majority of Americans oppose gay marriage, according to a poll by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press from March. But the poll also showed attitudes are changing: 63 percent opposed gay marriage in February 2004.

Those poll results don't reflect how people might feel about amending the Constitution to ban gay marriage.

People often wonder about how the Holocaust happened. How did people let fear seize them to the point that they would surrender common sense and dignity to anyone who promised to keep order, no matter how brutal or irrational their methods? Well, now we know. I was very young when the Civil Rights Act was passed. Up until now, I have lived in relatively liberal society, one that usually left people alone but occasionally offended conservatives on issues like gun control.

I am now presented with a President and Congress who want to federalize marriage in order to deny the benefit of marriage to gays, not trusting the states to make their own decisions.

I sometimes wonder if the Nazis really hated Jews and gays when they put them in concentration and later death camps, or were they just expedient scapegoats to focus public anger away from the party's many shortcomings. Since WWII, most ethnic and religious groups are on notice about any attempt to marginalize them in society. Even Muslims do not have to fear internment camps like the Japanese did in WWII, because at least society has learned it's lesson about religious and racial intolerance.

So it comes as no suprise that the one group that can still be safely marginalized has nothing to do with religion or race.

MaggieL, I can offer you 30 cents on the dollar now for your house and possessions, or would you rather wait for whatever the resettlement officer offers? I know you were very grateful to the Republicans for respecting your second amendmant rights. This was of course not much of a concession on their part since anti-tank weapons and heavy machine guns are still prohibited and that is probably what it would take to even out the odds if they come for you.

This is what happens when people are scared. The party in power sucks up to the radicals who have the discipline to vote as a bloc and wield their power, the great middle fails to meet their obligation to support the Constitution, and some small group gets flattened.

Let me know where I can send the CARE package. I might even be able to slip some wirecutters in a granola bar.

[wolf]

Hysteria isn't becoming on you, rich.

[Happy Monkey]

Every two years the gays become a threat to the very foundations of the country.

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by wolf

Hysteria isn't becoming on you, rich.

Well, it's better to say something when the runaway train is just starting to inch backwards than when it is halfway down the hill and picking up speed.

Looking at Saudi Arabia and the Wahhabists or Ireland and the Catholic church, it seems important to me to draw a line here to prevent what happened there, the merging of religious doctrine and government policy.

I take the Constitution very seriously. There have been any number of stupid amendments proposed, but none endorsed the way this one is. So a little bit of alarm is justified. Do I really think that we are headed towards barbed wire and guard towers? Probably, as in %99.9, not. And if the polls drop any lower for the current adminstration and Congress, I will probably have to recalculate.

BTW, I do not believe that I suffer from a disturbed uterus.

[Maui Nick]

Most of the self-delineated "defenders of marriage" look at marriage as a religious institution. Nothing could be less accurate. A heterosexual marriage is the same thing as the "civil union" the far right hates.

You get your marriage license at the local courthouse, not a church. You can get married at a church; you can also get married someplace else. You can have a clergyperson officiate at your wedding, or you can get somebody else to serve the same function without the funny collar.

But if you point that out to the self-proclaimed "defenders of marriage" they'll shout you down angrily. It doesn't change the fact that marriage is a civil union.

As for the amendment ... the last time the moralists tried to clutter up the Constitution with their talking points, it led to Prohibition. That worked out well for all involved, didn't it?

[xoxoxoBruce]

Damn good idea, after all if fags married fags and lesbians married lesbians they would be reproducing little fags and lesbians.

[MrVisible]

This is backfiring massively on the administration.

Two years ago, they rode back into power on the strength of states' anti-gay amendments (plus or minus a few tens of thousands of rigged votes). Four years before that, they did the same thing. Each time, they promised their frothy right-wing base that they'd do something about us gay people, once and for all.

And they didn't.

What's the quote again? Fool me once, something or other, fool me twice and something else? Well, nobody's being fooled anymore. Only the frothiest and rightest of the right-wingers have recognized pandering this blatant. There's barely a news article out there on this subject that doesn't mention that this has no way of passing and is a way of rallying his base.

It really says something when you have to pander to the one group of people you have left that should be supporting you come hell or high water. It says even more that the only way you have to reach out to them is through hatred and bigotry. And people are picking up on that.

I'll be surprised if Bush's popularity in the next few weeks goes much higher than 27%

It's a desperate move from a despised administration. An easily recognized, pointless gesture, that does more to highlight the inadequacies of the current regime than it does to condemn us as a nation. The very fact that this is already less than a joke, I think, says a lot for Americans. We should be proud that the only ones left that think this is a real issue are the nuttiest of wingnuts.

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by MrVisible

I'll be surprised if Bush's popularity in the next few weeks goes much higher than 27%

I just hope it doesn't go much lower than %20, or he might decide to throw a few of us Jews into the fire as well. After all, he's probably already pissed at Abramoff. Jews account for less than %3 of the population, and anti-Semites at least %10, so going by the numbers it's a %7 bounce.

And a lot of the people in his base would love it.

[xoxoxoBruce]

That's a good idea too, send all those damn Jews back to China.

Political desperation certainly is entertaining. It is a shame, though. it's not Bush that's in trouble. He won't be impeached, though he should be, so he'll retire to the ranch..... set for life.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by richlevy

This is what happens when people are scared.

That sounds pretty good coming from the left-side FUD factory, who have been trying to scare people for six years now and getting oh so frustrated when it doesn't work as well as they think it should.

Coming out for an amendment against gay marriage is a craven atempt to repair the damage done by embracing immigration amnesty. It won't work. And the bill won't pass either. It might be more of a political issue if there was anybody on the other side of the aisle supporting the right of gays to marry. Small choice among rotten apples...and attempts to whip up hysteria about it such as you just posted are just as craven.

The mistake here is allowing the government any say over marriage at all. Marriage licencing laws share their racist roots (happy now? I said "racist") with gun licencing laws; both were invented to keep blacks "under control" during Reconstruction.

[Maui Nick]

What are you talking about? The concept of the marriage license has existed since the Middle Ages, at least.

Originally Posted by Maui Nick

What are you talking about? The concept of the marriage license has existed since the Middle Ages, at least.

You mean back in the Middle Ages when the Church used to perform midnight same sex marriages?
Yup, it's true.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Marriage licenses are civil, they have nothing to do with the church.