| Author |
|
Knut Robert Knutsen
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 22 September 2006
Posts: 7374
|
| Posted: 15 June 2008 at 12:30pm | IP Logged | 1
|
|
|
"It's ugly, but it's all about money."
Careful. That there's some commie pinko talk right there. I should know.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Geoff Gibson
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 21 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 5741
|
| Posted: 15 June 2008 at 12:37pm | IP Logged | 2
|
|
|
I think most of the arguments against Gay marriage are absurd and DOMA
by defining marriage is equally absurd. Constitutionally I have trouble
with a law that seeks to limit the full faith and credit clause in a similar
way that I was troubled by the laws passed to legalize the tribunals in
GITMO.
As for the arguments against gay marriage I think with honest fair anlysis
they fall by the wayside. If we look to what "traditionally" or "historically"
marriage was, it was, first and foremost, a property transaction. And
often the bride was part of the property being transfered. We have long
since done away with the notion of marriage as a property transaction
and women are no longer considered chattel, so the traditional argument
falls as the basis for traditional marriage no longer exists.
The slippery slope argument articulated by Tom, also fails, I think,
because the basis for the argument is rooted in the view that
homosexuality is a deviant lifestyle. While I know a great many people
think that is the case, I don't think the majority of people think that way.
Legally, the act of sodomy is no longer criminalized whereas animal
husbandry is.
Finally the argument that gay marriage threatens marriage as an
institution is ridiculous. The only way gay marriage could threaten my
marriage is if my wife came home and told me that she was marrying one
of her girlfriends. Of course I would ask to watch! Just kidding . . . back
to the point . . . if my wife came home and wanted to marry another girl
or a different guy -- clearly the problems in my marriage did not exist
because of gays marrying, there were other problems there. So that
argument fails as well.
I've yet to hear an argument against gay marriage that I find compelling. I
think most of the arguments, when analyzed objectively fail.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Mike O'Brien
Byrne Robotics Member
Official JB Historian
Joined: 18 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 10934
|
| Posted: 15 June 2008 at 12:41pm | IP Logged | 3
|
|
|
Yes, you should find money offensive, Marc, I'm just saying - that's the grease that makes the machine run.
And, in the examples you suggest - Civil Rights? Remember, that came about as a result of people in the south fighting a war over how money was made. Abortion? Think Roe V Wade would have happened if abortions were free?
People talk about Freemasons being behind things, or Religion, or some government conspiracy, but in the end? It's one thing. Money.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Geoff Gibson
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 21 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 5741
|
| Posted: 15 June 2008 at 12:41pm | IP Logged | 4
|
|
|
On the issue of monetization of gay marriage -- I don't think it is
significantly different from the monetization of marriage in general. If you
get married you can do it cheap or you can spend a fortune. There is whole
industry that caters to marriage, weddings and honeymoons. I suspect that
industry looks at gay marriage simply as a potential new business line. And
funny enough there is a sort of equality that comes with that.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Geoff Gibson
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 21 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 5741
|
| Posted: 15 June 2008 at 12:45pm | IP Logged | 5
|
|
|
I encourage you to start talking about money driving the civil right
movement the next time you are at an NAACP convention.
A significant number of US Supreme Court cases dealing with racial
inequality were decided on the basis of the impact of discrimination on the
commerce clause of the Constitution. Saying that commerce helped drive
the civil rights movement is neither historically or legally inaccurate.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Marc Baptiste
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 17 June 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 3655
|
| Posted: 15 June 2008 at 2:29pm | IP Logged | 6
|
|
|
Geoff,
You're using the near-technicality of the ELASTIC CLAUSE to bolster Mike assertions???
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Geoff Gibson
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 21 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 5741
|
| Posted: 15 June 2008 at 2:30pm | IP Logged | 7
|
|
|
I'm not sure what you mean Marc.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Marc Baptiste
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 17 June 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 3655
|
| Posted: 15 June 2008 at 2:34pm | IP Logged | 8
|
|
|
I mean the fact that Congress uses the Commerce "elastic" Clause to justify its doing something hardly means commerce was involved at all! Use of the commerce clause is an historically abused means by which Congress does all kind of things that the founders never intended them to have the power to do.
Edited by Marc Baptiste on 15 June 2008 at 2:34pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Geoff Gibson
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 21 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 5741
|
| Posted: 15 June 2008 at 2:42pm | IP Logged | 9
|
|
|
It wasn't congress I referenced it was the Supreme Court.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Marc Baptiste
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 17 June 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 3655
|
| Posted: 15 June 2008 at 2:45pm | IP Logged | 10
|
|
|
Which cases Geoff? I would bet 100% of the ones you cite involve the High Court doing nothing more than upholding CONGRESS' use of the Commerce "elastic" Clause.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Geoff Gibson
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 21 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 5741
|
| Posted: 15 June 2008 at 2:48pm | IP Logged | 11
|
|
|
I also don't think DOMA being signed stopped a constitutional amendment
because I don't think that a proposed amendment would get two-thirds
support from both chambers.
Edited to add: Sorry I didn't chime in sooner Tom! I was playing with my kid.
Edited by Geoff Gibson on 15 June 2008 at 2:57pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Geoff Gibson
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 21 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 5741
|
| Posted: 15 June 2008 at 2:56pm | IP Logged | 12
|
|
|
Marc:
I'm too far removed from first year con law to cite the specific cases but
some of them were deeming state laws unconstitutional because they
impacted inter-state commerce. Those were the cases I was thinking of.
If my memory gets better or I am inclined to look them up I'll cite them to
you. But, and I hope you don't take offense were none is intended, but
precisely what are you finding offensive? Mike's point that money can
drive change is hardly a new assertion -- and hardly without historical
support.
Edited to correct:
As I thought about it I realized that Marc is of course right that in any of
the cases there was some federal law (beyond the constitution) that were
implicated. But Federal law trumps state law so a state law cannot act to
violate or be more restrictive than Federal law.
Edited by Geoff Gibson on 15 June 2008 at 3:11pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Topic Closed)
