Waldo Jaquith

Referring to Bob’s last paragraph, should we revisit laws that disallow polygamist practices for those who see polygamy as a vital part of their belief system? It seems as though “religous traditionalism” is behind more than just the view of marriage as a heterosexual institution. When do laws become moral? Is there any basis for morality in laws- and if so, where does moral relativism end and moral absolutes begin?
I would wager that if the amendment fails, the law will be addressed in the courts in quick fashion; if this were not true, there porbably wouldn’t be an amendment vote in eight days!

Posted by tom on 30 October 2006 @ 1pm

[...] Bob Gibson via Waldo Jaquith [...]

Posted by More good news on Voting NO « Vivian J. Paige on 30 October 2006 @ 4pm

If a church or temple wants to have a polygamous wedding, then they darn well have the right to regardless of what you or I might think of it. The government doesn’t have to recognize it on any level though. If a church also doesn’t want to have a polygamous, homosexual or even interracial marriage, then it has the right not to. A church is a religious institution assigned certain freedoms, and as long as it stays out of government it has the right to do almost anything it wants, because a church carries out spiritual marriage, not legal marriage. People forget that they are two different things.

I say a church can ALMOST get away with anything however because some religious practices are illegal. Saying that god told you to is not an instant get out of jail free card. The government does not bend over backwards (or at least shouldn’t) to religious ideas when setting up its structures. Just as interracial marriage can be a legally recognized form even though some Christians believe that black people bear the Mark of Cain, so can Polygamy be a not recognized form even though it is practiced in some religions. In the end it comes down to accommodating peoples rights and practicality.

But do not forget that this amendment is not about legalizing or prohibiting gay marriage or polygamy. Both are already illegal. This amendment is about restricting all rights, qualities and obligations associated with marriage from unmarried individuals (regardless of gender or state citizenship).

I’m really getting tired of people trying to scare others into voting for this amendment by constantly bringing up polygamy. I recently blogged about how absurd it is to worry about polygamy in VA. Check it out.

http://corycapron.blogspot.com/2006/10/on-bigotry-and-polygamy.html

Posted by Cory Capron on 30 October 2006 @ 11pm

Sorry Cory, but if anybody thinks that the legality of certain marriages isn’t the issue, they are very short-sighted. The law is really worthless if it is put to a test of constitutionality. Anybody that has a reasonable amount of intelligence can see through that argument. I don’t think there would be an issue if certain lawmakers didn’t ascertain the demise of the law when challenged by attorneys, as the law has no protection by the Constitution. For example, it is very difficult for attorneys to pierce the “corporate veil” because their are enough legal hurdles to protect officers in a corporation; if these protections were challenged and destroyed, the need for the corporation as an institution would disappear- and a bunch of attorneys would be looking for a stronger defense of corporations.
But I think you are correct about the accomodation of rights- though the question would be one that asks where the rights of the individual cross the point of exceeding the law. Assuming that the law serves as an absolute, who draws the line and where?

Posted by tom on 31 October 2006 @ 1pm

“Sorry Cory, but if anybody thinks that the legality of certain marriages isn’t the issue, they are very short-sighted.”

There are numerous issues that pertain to ballot question #1. To say that the legality of “certain marriages” (By the way, I like how you obscured that so it wasn’t clear if you were talking about homosexuality or polygamy there. Good debate move since it makes it harder for me to address the statement and to this point I have given a good argument against polygamist marriage but not homosexual marriage.) is “the issue” and not AN issue, is to imply a rather narrow perspective of your own about the possible effects that have lead numerous representatives from both parties including many people that oppose gay marriage such as Creigh Deeds to oppose the amendment. The fact is that your concern is one of Bob Marshall’s main arguing points, no the soul issue of import in this debate nor the one of most importance since voting against this amendment will in no way prevent another amendment that is worded better from being proposed.

“The law is really worthless if it is put to a test of constitutionality. Anybody that has a reasonable amount of intelligence can see through that argument.”

First of all unlike the amendment that proposes three different things in two paragraphs, Virginia law is a little cleaner about in breaking things down. We have two laws regarding homosexuals unions: one prohibiting marriage (20-45.2) and one prohibiting civil unions (20-45.3). Both do seem to violate the 14th amendment of the US Constitution where they fail to recognize the contracts from other states. So does the DOM Act that the Clinton administration passed, but no one seems to have shut that down yet. The same is done in the new amendment, so if such were to come to pass then would an amendment to the state constitution stand up against the U.S. constitution? According to the Supremacy Clause, it wouldn’t.

You also have to factor in the likelihood of so called “activist judges” in Virginia when the same legislative powers that would propose such an amendment are also the people that appoint the judges. If the laws were seriously challenged they probably would fail, but they would fail for some pretty good reasons, and the assumption that they will get the chance to that kind of trial with our judges is quite… a big one. If you disagree then fine, just write a better amendment!

“I don’t think there would be an issue if certain lawmakers didn’t ascertain the demise of the law when challenged by attorneys, as the law has no protection by the Constitution. For example, it is very difficult for attorneys to pierce the “corporate veil” because their are enough legal hurdles to protect officers in a corporation; if these protections were challenged and destroyed, the need for the corporation as an institution would disappear- and a bunch of attorneys would be looking for a stronger defense of corporations.”

I’m don’t quite see where you’re going with this. Could you put it in a more physical context? Maybe put some lawyers’ names in there and a case. As I said there are a lot of issues involved with this. I seem to have lost you when you started going on about corporations.

”But I think you are correct about the accomodation of rights- though the question would be one that asks where the rights of the individual cross the point of exceeding the law. Assuming that the law serves as an absolute, who draws the line and where”

Well, every nearsighted person lacking reasonable intelligence has to hit the broadside of the barn eventually. It is a heck of a question though. One that seems to evolve over time as we become more educated and face new philosophical challenges, some genuinely new and others quite old but recently allowed an unprecedented voice and attention. One thing is clear however: the individual’s rights do, and must always, override religious rights within government legislature. The government is for the people, not the cloth.

Posted by Cory Capron on 31 October 2006 @ 4pm

Well, I’m not a debater… and I’m not nearsighted… but I’ve studied government, politics, and history for a pretty long time. I’m simply presenting what some proponents of the amendment have already acknowledged; the law regarding marriage in Virginia WILL face a court test if the amendment fails. By the way, the lawmakers that are concerned about this happen to have their name on the proposed amendment!

You might need to study corporate law if you need some names of attorneys who have tried to pierce the corporate veil- the protection that corporate officers are afforded if their corporations go belly-up. I simply use this scenario because a corporation, like marriage, is recognized by the state and is protected by state law, while not specifically addressed in the constitution. Of course, it’s not a perfect comparison, but it might serve to illustrate!

Not to make this a personal issue, but it seems as though you take my question personally. My comment mentioning “reasonable intelligence” should have been read as retorical, not personal. I’m sorry if it was taken that way.
When you get to the core of the argument, the question of relativism vs. absolutism is what the issue is about. Those who try to legislate their morality will fail; but we, as a society will eventually take one of those two paths. I don’t think this amendment will be the deciding factor, either!
By the way- I’m not a regular to Blogs- how did you get the italics?

Posted by tom on 31 October 2006 @ 10pm