posted
I feel like an idiot for not knowing this, but what is the relationship between a state constitution and federal law? I know the federal constitution trumps a state constitution, but does a federal law overrule a state constitution?
(It's been a long time since my last pol sci class. )
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:The Supreme Judicial Court's 4-3 ruling ordered the Legislature to come up with a solution within 180 days.
While a victory for gay rights advocates, the decision fell short of what the seven couples who sued the state had hoped to receive: the right to marry their longtime companion.
The Massachusetts question will now return to the Legislature, which already is considering a constitutional amendment that would legally define a marriage as a union between one man and one woman. The state's powerful Speaker of the House, Tom Finneran of Boston, has endorsed this proposal.
In addition to Vermont, courts in Hawaii and Alaska have previously ruled that the states did not have a right to deny marriage to gay couples. In those two states, the decisions were followed by the adoption of constitutional amendments limiting marriage to heterosexual couples. No American court has ordered the issuance of a marriage license a privilege reserved for heterosexual couples.
The U.S. House is currently considering a constitutional ban on gay marriage. President Bush, although he believes marriage should be defined as a union between one man and one woman, recently said that a constitutional amendment is not yet necessary.
Gov. Mitt Romney has repeatedly said that marriage should be preserved as a union between a man and a woman, but has declined to comment on what he would do if gay marriages are legalized. On the campaign trail last fall, Romney said he would veto gay-marriage legislation. He supports giving domestic benefits such as inheritance and hospital visitation rights to gay couples.
posted
A federal law only trumps a state constitution if the constitution (of the US) says the federal government has power in that particular mode.
Otherwise the power get reserved to the states and/or the people, and that's been generally interpretted to mean the states.
Of course, its also been generally interpretted that the feds can enforce whatever law they want until the supreme court overturns the law, or a state is pissed off enough to just ignore the federal law (which does happen), in which case the enforcement of the law in that state is solely dependent upon the ability of the feds to enforce the law themselves (sometimes this is practical, sometimes not).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Right this moment, nothing has changed in Massachusetts. The Court gave the legislature 180 days to figure it out. In 180 days, it is unlikely they will be able to pass a state constitutional amendment, so for a while at least, some type of civil union should be possible in Massachusetts, but it won't be recognized in any other state. However, sometime shortly after 180 days, it is entirely possible that the state will bring to a vote, a constitutional amendment declaring that marriage is between a man and woman only, much like Hawaii and Alaska did.
Secondarily, while Bush recently said that the Federal Constitutional Amendment that was being bandied about wasn't necessary at the time, he may have second thoughts about that, depending on what the Massachusetts legislature does.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The thought of a Constitutional amendment outlawing civil unions literally nauseates me.
On the bright side, I think Dubya is too dumb to realize that bringing up issues like this so close to election time is going to have him back in Texas running businesses into the ground sooner than he'd like.
Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Completely absurd. The idea of a constitutional ammendment for that purpose is revolting. I sincerly hope that within my lifetime, Christianity ceases entirely to have any political influence. It seems clear to me that any kind of religious social conservativism is hopelessly morally and intellectually bankrupt.
Posts: 1769 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: Justice Sosman, in a separately filed dissenting opinion, stated that "the issue is not whether the Legislature's rationale behind [the statutory scheme being challenged] is persuasive to [the court]," but whether it is "rational" for the Legislature to "reserve judgment" on whether changing the definition of marriage "can be made at this time wihtout damaging the institution of marriage or adversely affecting the critical role it has played in our society." She concluded that, "[a]bsent consensus on the issue (which obviously does not exist), or unanimity amongst scientists studying the issue (which also does not exist), or a more prolonged period of observation of this new family structure (which has not yet been possible), it is rational for the Legislature to postpone any redefinition of marriage that would include same-sex couples until such time as it is certain that redefinition will not have unintended and undesirable social consequences."
-- From one of the dissenting opinions.
This is despicable to me. The argument here is that short of societal or scientific consensus, we should study a "family structure" that can't exist until we can determine that it can exist. How can societal or scentific consensus even be made one way or the other, honestly, without having the ability to have actual examples of the social structure you want to study?
The other two dissenting opinions at least remained within the construct of state constitutional law. That sort of logic I can respect, and I would be interested on some legal (obviously it would have to be MA, since this is state law) issues brought up in the dissent.
posted
Yay for changing the constitution based on a vague fear of homosexuals!
It is revolting that a state legislature would take such a drastic action to reflect views that are, at their core, petty, ignorant, childish and hateful.
Posts: 1769 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Look, if I'm the only one who will put any effort into starting a flamewar, then maybe I made the wrong choice in coming here. Where is Jettboy when you need him?
Posts: 1769 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know Jettboy left. It was around the time I called him a Nazi and he agreed with me. My question was rhetorical.
Posts: 1769 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
What I don't understand is how allowing civil unions would effect anything in any way. I mean, what do these people think is going to happen if gay marriages are allowed? After all, marriage is pretty much just a formality anyway. Gays can already live together just as if they were married. So what's the big deal about giving them the official title?
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Make no mistake, this is all a concerted effort by certain religious groups to deny equal rights and consideration to people that they deem less worthy than they. Fundamentally, it is no different than the treatment of women in places like Saudi Arabia. The difference is that in the US, there are people willing to stand up to this bigotry.
Posts: 1769 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Chaeron, I must confess that I do not understand you. It's true--some religious conservatives are the hypocritical bigots you suggest they are. I've encountered one or two myself; some of the worst ones spooked me--and that's a feat.
But I can't believe that I'm alone in bearing homosexuals no particular ill-will while believing their sexual activity is immoral and should be discouraged. I can't imagine ever beating someone up, let alone dragging them behind my truck, and while I have on rare occasions been known to call people nasty names, this is one group of people it's never occurred with. So why are you so eager to deny me and those like me political influence?
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Its not just some religious conservatives, its all of the 70 million strong evangelical southern christians. They boycott Disney world & picket it, scaring children outside it with graphic displays and rhetoric concerning homosexuality, the churches regularly encourage block voting in cities and counties to sap all possible public funds away from anything even tolerant of homosexuals, the list goes on. I know a lot of you think Jerry Falwel is a nut but unfortunately millions of people take him seriously. When he asked his "American Congregation" to contact the White House to tell Bush to not critisize Israel over seiging Arafat's compound and later for issuing Arafat's death warrant, 10+ million people phoned, mailed and emailed the White House. Other examples of his control include his push to have Bush create "healthcare for the unborn," an executive order subverting a monumental supreme court decision, Bush's faith based initiative, stopping stem cell research, and other hallmarks of the current theocracy. Make no mistake, Jerry Falwel has immense power and so do the other conservative, dispensationalist evangelicals. You might say this is a rather harsh evaluation, but when you have leaders who literally carve up the world into "good" and "[axis of] evil," you have to wonder who influences these guys.
quote:When he asked his "American Congregation" to contact the White House to tell Bush to not critisize Israel over seiging Arafat's compound and later for issuing Arafat's death warrant, 10+ million people phoned, mailed and emailed the White House.
Joy. That's what we all need: some group (not even a majority of the people) trying to tell ME what I think is wholesome/family oriented.
On the whole, people that would deny homosexuals the right to marriage are no better than (and quite possibly worse than) the racist groups that love to take away the civil rights of people.
Posts: 851 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Doesn't the Jewish and Islamic religions have banns on homosexual marriages? Don't forget to add them into your "psychos who need to go" list.
Also, I can find it right now but I hear that the only openly gay member of the court voted against the decision because she thought that the legislature, rather than the court, should decide how to regulate marriage.
Posts: 7083 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd rather add the closed minded people themselves to my list of psycho's that need to go, rather than any religion.
Posts: 851 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maccabeus, if you can't see why theocracy is antithetical to the idea of democracy, liberty and equality, then I don't think we can have any meaningful discourse.
Your country was one founded on secular ideals. The First Ammendment ensures not only freedom of religion, but freedom from religion. People have the right not to have other's religious beliefs forced on them, especially by the state. America is not a Christian nation; the Constitution makes it clear that it is a secular one, and as such, laws should not entrench religious morality. You are certianly entitled to your beliefs, including the belief that homosexual acts are morally wrong, just as I am entitled to believe that acting on that view is immoral.
What you cannot do is use the powers of the state to enforce your religious morality. If you have no desire to do this, then my animosity is not directed towards you. If, on the other hand, you do, then you must also reject the principles that your nation was founded on. The belief that purely religious values can be legitimately integrated with a state's law is not compatable with the constitution, or with the modern western state. It is, however, completely compatible with Saudi Arabia or medieval Spain.
Posts: 1769 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't care if you wanna put blame on christianity for persecution of homosexuals, but lets share the blame with the other major religions as well. I believe they have the same tenets and feelings, they just don't have a Jerry Falwell to watch on TV.
quote: Your country was one founded on secular ideals. The First Ammendment ensures not only freedom of religion, but freedom from religion. People have the right not to have other's religious beliefs forced on them, especially by the state.
It isn't especially from the state. It's only from the state. It says the government cannot establish a religion, not that some nut on the street can't try to force his religion on you. Just a small quibble.
posted
Prolixshore, I put the blame on Christianity not because the views of Jewish or Islamic theocrats are any less vile, but because neither are politically influential in your country or mine. If they were equally influential, then they would no doubt share an equal part of the blame.
In regards to your second reply, I suppose, for the purposes of my argument, it would be better to say that people cannot use the state to force religious belief on others. This does not just preclude an official state religion, but the endorsement of any religious element whatsoever. Also, some nut on the street has no right to force his religious beliefs on me. He can prosletyse all he wants, but he can't force his beliefs on me. I think that would necessitate something akin to assault, kidnapping, etc.
Posts: 1769 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:[the ban on same-sex marriages] prevents children of same-sex couples "from enjoying the immeasurable advantages that flow from the assurance of 'a stable family structure in which children will be reared, educated, and socialized."
The stability of a family is predicated on the individuals within it, not the civil law that binds the members together.
quote:The court remarked that its decision "does not disturb the fundamental value of marriage in our society." "That same-sex couples are willing to embrace marriage's solemn obligations of exclusivity, mutual support, and commitment to one another is a testament to the enduring place of marriage in our laws and in the human spirit," the court stated.
quote:Noting that "civil marriage has long been termed a 'civil right,"' the court concluded that "the right to marry means little if it does not include the right to marry the person of one's choice, subject to appropriate government restrictions in the interests of public health, safety, and welfare."
posted
I still do not understand what makes Homosexual Marriages not within your church so bad. Could some one enlighten me.
Before you start typing, I've heard the following arguments.
1) It does not help society by seeing to its growth. A marriage is supposed to support a stable family. Since gay couples cannot produce a family, they shouls not be able to marry.
1-Rebuttal) Under that argument then married heterosexual couples that cannot have children should not be allowed to marry. In fact, fertility tests should be mandated before a marriage contract is allowed.
2) It is a sin according to my religion. As an example, homosexual activity is considered a sin according to my evangelical Christian faith. As such we should not have the state legalizing sins.
2-Rebuttal) Also according to Evangelical Christian faith, it is a sin to marry outside the church, to be of a non-Christian faith, or to have any kind of sex out of wedlock. Yet we have no laws banning inter-faith marriages. We have laws legalizing Palimony and allowing two unmarried people to live together without prosecution. Further, we do not ban Beef or Pork because the eating of it is a sin according to other people's religions.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was at a Thanksgiving service last night, and a local Baptist minister gave a guest sermon. In the middle of talking about how blessed by God America is, he made a remark about how you wouldn't know it from the news coming out of Massachusetts... Eep. That ruined the sermon for me.
Posts: 2911 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"The stability of a family is predicated on the individuals within it, not the civil law that binds the members together."
So you're saying that you're okay with gay marriage, Scott, since civil gay marriage would have no effect on the stability of families?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:What you cannot do is use the powers of the state to enforce your religious morality.
Actually, this isn't true at all. The government has enforced morality all along and the Constitution grants them that power. For instance, you can't kill people because you believe killing is wrong. Or, if you want to take a slightly more contraversial answer, prostitution is often illegal because people consider it wrong. The things illustrate how morality is enforcable.
What the Constitution doesn't allow is stating it favors one religion over any other. This, at least as defined by the Supreme Court, doesn't mean the government can't favor one moral view over another. It merely means it can't make claims about what god exists, what miracles occured in the past, or other areas that are generally considered exclusively the domain of religion.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:So you're saying that you're okay with gay marriage, Scott, since civil gay marriage would have no effect on the stability of families?
No. I'm saying individual family stability is dependent on individual family members' actions and lifestyles, not on laws.
Since I don't believe that the example a homosexual lifestyle sets forth is beneficial for children or society, I am clearly not in the pro-gay-marriage camp.
As you know. As probably everyone on the board knows.
EDIT:
You know, the majority opinion, in stating that the crux of civil marriage was to support the spouses, not the children, is very interesting.
It will be interesting as well to see how the state legislature reacts to this very crucial point. It is possible (is it?) that this statement could be used to allow homosexual marriages, but refuse adoptions by homosexual couples.
[ November 19, 2003, 11:52 AM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Could you perhaps qualify this homosexual lifestyle? I know a decent number of homosexual people, and I've never been able to divine any ways their public lifestyle can be qualified, except possibly that they tend to be far more accepting of differences
After you've told us what the homosexual lifestyle consists of, could you tell us which aspects in particular are harmful, dangerous, or otherwise undesirable to society?
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scott, I know you probably went over this in the other threads, but what exactly do you mean by:
"the example a homosexual lifestyle sets forth"
Is this example of sinning according to the bible? Is this example doing something adultorous? Is this example doing something unclean and unhealthy?
Please, I don't mean to limit it you to those three answers. What exactly is it that the homosexual lifestyle projects that is not beneficial for society?
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry-- lifestyle is kind of innaccurate. I should have used a different word.
Since I don't believe that the example a homosexual relationship sets forth is beneficial for children or society, I am clearly not in the pro-gay-marriage camp.
This is more accurate.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Slight derailment, but what the heck--we already know how everybody here feels about homosexual marriage rights:
quote:They boycott Disney world & picket it, scaring children outside it with graphic displays and rhetoric concerning homosexuality. . . .
Um, I know about the Southern Baptist protests and boycotts, but I have absolutely never seen picketers anywhere around Disney World, and certaily not picketers scaring children with graphic displays of anything.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, if something is not beneficial for children or society, you desire it to be outlawed?
For instance, do you believe sex outside of wedlock is not a good example for children or society? If so, do you desire it be made illegal? How about smoking? Also, is society worse off than it would be if the bible was required reading -- thus making the absence of such a law not beneficial? If so, would you support making the bible required reading?
If you do think any of these things are not beneficial to society, could you elaborate on what is different about homosexual civil unions? Particularly as it is currently legal, albeit difficult, for a homosexual couple to raise children -- they just don't have many of the legal protections that prevent their children from being taken away if the legal guardian in the couple dies.
I apologize if this sounds like I am attacking you. I do not mean it that way.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
