If the state held a referendum on barring intermarriage between Muslims and non-Muslims, would it pass? If it did pass, and a judge overturned it, would that judge be “activist”?
Comments are closed.
Open source, procurement, and gov tech.
If the state held a referendum on barring intermarriage between Muslims and non-Muslims, would it pass? If it did pass, and a judge overturned it, would that judge be “activist”?
Comments are closed.
I understand and agree with what you are saying totally, but I’m not sure it persuades at all. The pro-same sex marriage movement predominantly argues their case on the grounds of fairness, while the “traditional marriage” advocates all make cases that stem from the initial belief that same-sex relationships are unhealthy/unholy. While this thought exercise appeals to those that view this issue on the grounds of fairness, I would be surprised if it did anything for opponents of same-sex marriage.
Believe it or not, I’m not making a point about gay marriage, or even attempting to persuade. I’m genuinely curious whether people believe such an amendment would pass, and whether anybody believes that it should pass.
In that case, no and no. Though there would be a saddening minority who would vote for this, I suspect.
I approach this as someone who voted against Amendment 1 b/c I don’t believe we should have graffitied our constitution, but remains unconvinced, so far, by the arguments in favor of same-sex marriage.
To me it seems obvious that when a group of people advocate overturning 4,000 years of tradition where marriage was between a man and a woman, then the burden of proof ought to rest with them in showing no harm is likely to come to one of the bedrock institutions of our society. I do not believe they have met that burden.
And in response to Joe, my opposition to same-sex marriage does NOT “stem from the initial belief that same-sex relationships are unhealthy/unholy,” I’m just not certain they warrant the same recognition as traditional marriage. And what’s up with the scare quotes around “traditional marriage?”
OK, you confused me, too.
I don’t think it would pass. If it did, it would be invalidated as in conflict with the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause, among other statutues and provisions of the federal constitiution. And, no, the judge thus ruling would not be activist. Indeed, he should be impeached and removed if he ruled any other way.
Perhaps the scare quotes around “traditional marriage” are because marriage is traditionally a man who takes, as his personal property, a woman of the same race. The idea that allowing same-sex marriage overturns 4000 years of tradition in a way unlike allowing interracial marriage and unlike the change of marriage from an ownership relationship to a partnership is an idea which I have not been convinced of. These are all three very new ideas to this millenia-old tradition.
Then again, perhaps the scare quotes were just there to slight the idea of traditional marriage. I can’t speak for Joe.
Of course, even if we accept that same-sex marriage is revolutionary in some way that these other changes weren’t, the legal status of same-sex marriage doesn’t really determine whether or not the tradition changes. Homosexuals are getting married today, the question is whether the state recognizes these marriages. But I believe marriage to be a social and religious bond, and certainly not one that requires state intervention, though it helps to gain the benefits that the state gives married couples.
So then the question becomes, should the state recognize same-sex marriages? The answer for me is yes, but I’ll stop here. The above might have some bit of pertinance to the questions posed, but an argument about why the state should recognize same-sex marriages is less likely to.
Incidentally, I think that the Muslim intermarriage law would come very close to passing, but fall short. As for whether that judge would be activist… Well, I’m not sure if judicial activism has a formal meaning in law. From my perspective, it seems to be applied by legislators and those who back them whenever the judicial branch does their job, so it’s hard to say whether a judge is objectively “activist.” Perhaps someone could enlighten me.
“14th Amendment’s equal protection clause”
Why doesn’t this apply to gays and lesbians?
For that matter, why doesn’t it apply to polygamists?
I’m not making a slippery slope argument. I think it should.
The equal protection clause DOES apply to gays and lesbians. Like heterosexuals, they are free to marry a member of the opposite sex; like heterosexuals, they are prohibited from marrying a member of the same sex.
That they are not currently afforded a special dispensation to have legally recognized same-sex marriages is, in my view, no equal protection problem.
But the same logic applies to interracial marriage (blacks are as free to marry blacks as whites are to marry whites) and interfaith marriage (Muslims are as free to marry Muslims as Christians are to marry Christians). It’s both logical and meaningless.
I’m reminded of the joke often told about clueless companies. Two guys are deep in the Washington State fog in their helicopter when their radar goes out. To get their bearings they finally lower their copter to the ground and shout out to onlookers. “Where are we?” the pilot shouts. “You’re in a helicopter!” comes the response. The pilot, newly confident, pulls back up into the air. “How is that helpful?” asks a passenger. “Oh, I know right where we are,” responds the pilot. “We’re in Redmond, and that was Microsoft headquarters.” “Amazing,” remarks the passenger. “How did you know?” “Easy,” says the pilot, “I asked a simple question and was given a response that was both entirely accurate and totally useless. So I knew that had to be a Microsoft employee.”
It wouldn’t pass, but 20% of the people would vote for anything. You could propose an amendment to rename the state to Fuzzy-Land and serve arsenic in school and people would vote for it.
Duane, I really think you’re on to something there. There’s also the percentage of people who won’t vote for any amendments. If Amendments 2 & 3 are any indicator, it appears to be about 35%. I figure that means the remaining 45% are the folks who can be persuaded.
Legally a marriage is in it’s essence a business merger/contract between two people which conveys specific (government recognized) legal rights and (financial) benefits between each party. This business merger and it’s benefits are denied to people of the same gender.
The issue of same gender marriage is really about who should get the government entitlements associated with marriage, and should be framed with this question: “Why should government entitlements granted with marriage only be available to a Man and a Woman? And not a Man and a Man or a Woman and a woman?”
And if “marriage” is really a “religious institution” then why should government be participating in it at all and recognizing it with a class of entitlements? Perhaps it shouldn’t.
As for the intermarriage between Muslim and non-Muslim, it wouldn’t pass because it’s it would be a law based on religion (yeah I know, but people are hypocrites). For that reason the Christian wackos would oppose it (as in “hey, if a Muslim marries a Christian- then we might be able to get a new convert to Christ”). Warm and fuzzy liberal types would oppose it because it attacks a minority (Muslims). If it did pass and a judge overturned it the judge wouldn’t be considered activist. Why? Because people are hypocrites.
I voted against those two amendments based simply on the fact that I knew the religous bigotry amendment would pass- so for me “no” was a protest vote (that and I really can’t see why a church needs to be able to incorporate).
“And in response to Joe, my opposition to same-sex marriage does NOT “stem from the initial belief that same-sex relationships are unhealthy/unholy,” I’m just not certain they warrant the same recognition as traditional marriage. And what’s up with the scare quotes around “traditional marriage?””
Traditional marriage, as Ben explained, has very little universal tradition. There is both the arranged as well as free varieties, with or without dowries, where the woman may or may not be considered property. Furthermore, the restrictions on who you can marry vary greatly as well. I meant no attack on heterosexual marriages, considering I hope to have one someday.
“To me it seems obvious that when a group of people advocate overturning 4,000 years of tradition where marriage was between a man and a woman, then the burden of proof ought to rest with them in showing no harm is likely to come to one of the bedrock institutions of our society. I do not believe they have met that burden.”
You can only put the burden of proof on same sex couples when you have an unbiased method of evaluating whether or not harm comes to that institution. I personally see no more harm than interracial relationships or the ability to repeatedly divorce, so I support the charge to allow it. I’d even be willing to go so far as to say that you believe same-sex marriage would harm the institution because you seem homosexual relationships as either unhealthy, or not in accordance with the rites of marriage, which were given down by God, thus making it (same-sex marriage) unholy. You’ve just wrapped it up in a pretty bow of protectionism.
More important, I can’t see why they shouldn’t be able to incorporate.
But there is one particularly good reason: it’s hard to start a church without a corporation. If a dozen people all get together and put up some money to kick it off…then what? They need a legal entity to put their money into, and they surely deserve access to the same sort of legal protection that anybody else starting an organization does.
When I hear “Incorporate” I automatically think “for profit endeavor.” I thought there was an existing legal entity for non-profits and churches that wasn’t incorporation. If I was wrong so be it (it happens occasionally).
Seeing as they aren’t willing to grant legal protections to same gender couples who wish to use legal vehicles to create a semblance of the protections granted by marriage (avoiding the entitlements issue altogether)- then I am inclined to say “no” when they ask for the legal protections of incorporation.
Yeah, but why should churches (or any other religious body) be forced to accomodate lifestyles with which they vehemently disagree?
We’ve become so focused on watching out for real or imagined threats to the separation of church and state from the church side of things that we forget the gate swings both ways: there can be no government interference/compulsion with the church either. Render unto God, and all that.
I tend to forget that people have no need to be aware of these distinctions. (I’ve run [badly] a pair of 501(c)3s before.) I’ll bet yours is a common misconception. The full name is, in fact, “non-profit corporation.” A non-profit status is actually awarded for tax purposes, and has little to do with how the corporation itself is established as a legal entity. 501(c)3 is actually the portion of the IRS’ code that deals with tax-deductible charities. (There are also 501(c)4s — civic groups, IIIRC — and another half dozen types.) A non-profit corporation is fundamentally a corporation just like any others, shielding its owners and employees from liability for actions taken by the corporation.
More important, Virginia law already permits churches to incorporate. It’s unconstitutional not to let them do so. The purpose of that amendment was just to make code law match court rulings.
Why in the world should they have to do that? I don’t think anybody’s suggested that.
And that, IMHO, is one of the worst things about this amendment. Who are we to tell churches who they can and can’t marry? What other sacraments will we start regulating? No communion for felons? No last rites to undocumented immigrants?
Nobody is asking for that, they can exclude whomever they wish from their congregation on Sunday. Further, marriage isn’t a religious institution anymore- it ceased being a religious institution when the government decided it was worthy of recognizing with a set of legal rights and benefits/entitlements.
As I said before: “Legally a marriage is in it’s essence a business merger/contract between two people which conveys specific (government recognized) legal rights and (financial) benefits between each party. This business merger and it’s benefits are denied to people of the same gender.”
Now not only are those rights and benefits denied same gender couples- but the religous crackpots decided that same gender couples should have “NO” protections as (a couple) under law AND they put it in the STATE CONSTITUTION.
It wasn’t enough to say “the business merger that is marriage and it’s entitlements are only available to one man and one woman” (which they already had). They had to say- “any legal vehicle that attempts to mirror these same legal protections aren’t allowed either.”
That’s going a little bit above and beyond. That’s not ‘protecting’ them from having to accommodate someone they find offensive. It’s legislating their morality in something that is a civil rights issue.
Bigotry codified into law is wrong. Like slavery, segregation and the miscegenation laws that came before, history has proven it will not last.
Anyway that’s my 2 cents on the subject.
Hey, TrvlnMn, I agree with you on the just-passed amendment. I voted against it, too. But when you wrote:
Seeing as they aren’t willing to grant legal protections to same gender couples who wish to use legal vehicles to create a semblance of the protections granted by marriage (avoiding the entitlements issue altogether)- then I am inclined to say “no” when they ask for the legal protections of incorporation.
I took it to mean you advocate using the power of the state to deny churches the advantages of incorporating just b/c they won’t act in accordance with what you deem to the correct course on same-sex marriage. Perhaps I misinterpreted you.
Thanks for your clarification. I definitely misinterpreted you then. However you probably didn’t misinterpret me. Although when you say it phrase it as you just did it sounds a lot more sinister than I intended.
I shouldn’t have been, but I was being petty. As in “turn about is fair play.” By way of explaining why I was one of the 35 percent that voted “no” to the church incorporation amendment (which I knew would pass anyway- but figured, “eh what the heck lets give it a no vote”).
I also really only intended it as an example of the extremes one could go to when we start using the government to deny rights as opposed to granting them (and should have said just that in the other post).
Although I heartily believe that churches should not be “profit making endeavors” beyond what is required to keep the lights on and help the misfortunate. And have seen them become such in some of the other places I’ve lived. I also believe they’ve abused the spirit of their nonprofit status with the political lobbying they’ve engaged in.
“To me it seems obvious that when a group of people advocate overturning 4,000 years of tradition where marriage was between a man and a woman, then the burden of proof ought to rest with them in showing no harm is likely to come to one of the bedrock institutions of our society. I do not believe they have met that burden.”
To bring the discussion back to same-sex marriage, or same-sex fairness…
There is evidence that same-sex marriage may actually HELP the “bedrock institution” of marriage. In Massachusetts and some European countries, the rate of divorce is extremely low, even though same-sex marriage or civil unions have been instituted.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/14/weekinreview/14pamb.html?ex=1258174800&%2338;en=4f927c5f27fb9966&%2338;ei=5090
http://www.talk2action.org/story/2006/7/13/14120/4811
But, just as it’s been proven and advocated by many professional organizations that gays and lesbians make GREAT parents (at least as well as straights), and just as it’s been IGNORED by those who decide that the only good family has a father and a mother, I don’t think the evidence that gay marriage isn’t harmful will actually “stick” with its opponents. After all, most opponents of gay marriage, gay families, gay ANYTHING, didn’t arrive at their opinions based on long, thoughtful, logical pondering of the issues.
I’m sure there’s evidence both sides can point to buttress their viewpoints, and more will certainly become available in the next few years as data from Canada and some European countries where same-sex marriage is already legal become available.
Unfortunately, it seems to me that this is one area where federalism (which IMHO is so handy in so many ways) will not help us. Unlike say automobile emission standards for cars sold in a particular state, you can’t have 50 different sets of rules on same-sex marriage. In a society as mobile as ours where boilerplate contracts are governed by the laws of VA, DE, or wherever, it’s got to be something of an all or nothing proposition.
501(c)6 is another one, supposedly for business and trade groups. This is one that isn’t required to divulge their donor’s names. You might remember that a group with that designation was making dubious robo-calls during the Kaine-Kilgore race a year ago. I don’t remember their name, but there was an uproar about them at the time, concerning their actions on behalf of candidates and issues, contrary to their statements concerning their advocacy.
Unlike say automobile emission standards for cars sold in a particular state, you can’t have 50 different sets of rules on same-sex marriage. In a society as mobile as ours where boilerplate contracts are governed by the laws of VA, DE, or wherever, it’s got to be something of an all or nothing proposition.
Exactly right, which is why the business community will be the ones to demand that we correct this situation. Marriage equality is inevitable, because it is a recognition of objective reality over the fantasy world the ideologues live in. Just to be clear, I make a distinction between those like Judge Smails, who are seeking data, and those who believe they already have all the answers they will ever need.
Here’s some common sense (not to be confused with data): Children who are wanted and planned and sacrificed for are in general better off than those who are accidents and not especially wanted. The New York Supreme Court dubiously employed this assumption in their decision upholding current marriage law: often, heterosexual couples exclaim “Oops, we made a baby” and therefore need extra support from the state to compensate for this impairment. I’m just sayin’.