House to Fags: No justice for you! Come back, one year!

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by SpyMoose, Jul 23, 2004.

  1. SpyMoose Secret double agent deer Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,641
    http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/07/22/house.samesex.marriage.ap/index.html

    How could a vote like this have happened? Are our representatives truly so unschooled in constitutional law? Congress does not have the power to do this, and the courts are going to call bullshit.

    Damn right! If this sort of thing can happen then what else can? The constitution will no longer mean a thing if the courts cannot review legislation that passes the congress.

    Of course this is assuming the courts don't just rule this vote unconstitutional, which they almost certainly will. I can’t imagine that the courts want the congress telling them what laws they do and don't have jurisdiction over. How will the Supreme Court feel about this? After they went through the trouble of appointing Bush instead of letting the people elect Gore, he backs a measure that strips them of jurisdiction!

    So how about it people? Is the gay marriage issue so important that we aught to amend, or barring that, ignore the constitution over it?
     
    Last edited: Jul 23, 2004
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Mystech Adult Supervision Required Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,938
    Hmm, so they fear that federal courts would deem the DoMA unconstitutional so they trump them by passing legislation saying that they can't rule on it? Do they even have that power? I need to go back to my American government class. If I'm understanding this correctly then the house has just voted to take away any Federal Court's Jurisdiction over a federal law. . . why the hell do we need separation of powers when we've got Herr Bush and his Reich, er, administration overseeing the fatherl- er, homeland?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. SpyMoose Secret double agent deer Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,641
    Why fear the expansion of government powers, after all if you haven’t done anything wrong then you have nothing to fear! ... Oh, er... unless you are a homosexual that is.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,882
    No they don't have the power. What gets me is that previously I had held the idea that much of the conservative panic was designed to stave off a DoMA showdown, but this move guarantees so many lawsuits that by the time that issue is settled, there will be no avoiding a DoMA showdown.
     
  8. Mystech Adult Supervision Required Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,938
    That’s true, but where exactly are we going to be seeing this showdown happen? They've essentially voted to put a fence around the town square, and demand that all persons stay inside at high noon (if that's not going too far into the analogy). I’m going to have to talk to my lawyer about this. . . well my law instructor, I’m too poor to actually afford a lawyer heh.

    In any case I’m going to be taking the HRC’s constant nagging advice (they e-mail me like 50 times a week about this) and call my senators to see too it that this thing doesn’t make it past them. I’d trust McCain to vote against it, but Kyle has got some issues.
     
  9. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,882
    The way I see it, HR 3313, if enacted, will meet immediate challenge. With all the public scrutiny in the press and the courts, it seems almost inconceivable that we should fight about the ability to challenge DoMA without intending to challenge DoMA.

    Previously, legislative and litigious panic centered around throwing as many stubling blocks as possible on the path to a DoMA showdown. This puts one big stumbling block on the path, and by the time the people go over, around, or through it, their momentum will carry them straight to DoMA. Whereas legal arguments would previously center on the right or power to pass this or that state or local law, they now will center on whether or not DoMA can be challenged.

    I mean, frankly I think this is getting ridiculous. Gays are on par with suspected terrorists inasmuch as the government is willing to throw out the Constitution in order to avoid doing what's right? What the hell country am I in?
     
  10. Mystech Adult Supervision Required Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,938
    You know, Tiassa I hear that there are already plans in the works to vote on Catch-22 if it seems like HR-3313 meets too much resistance.
     
  11. SpyMoose Secret double agent deer Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,641
    Maybe the big push to delay the challenge of the DoMA is an effort to keep gay marriage from becoming a national reality during Bush's first term. I don't think it could influence many voters, but maybe some of the fundie base would not turn out for the vote if Bush let that happen. If so this is a pretty desperate and drastic way to try to slow down the process, but I guess the republicans know their base would rather see them as tough on gays, even if it means being opposed to the constitution as well, rather than let gays have the rights they sort of already have with the current ability of gays to marry in Mass.
     
  12. Undecided Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,731
    As an observer from a foreign nation, I can safely say that your nation is descending backwards. Canada, Western Europe are light years ahead of the US in terms of human rights, and basic human dignity. The problem in the US is that you have a vocal, and large religious right, which is rather influential. I was thinking about the US political equilibrium, most Americans are liberal and democratic. But the reason why anti-progressive doctrines are even given a glance is because the antagonistic elements within your democracy are easily energized. For instance most Americans are pro-gun control, but yet the US maintains very liberal gun ownership laws, why? Because NRA members are more likely to vote then anti-gun constituents.
     
  13. Mystech Adult Supervision Required Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,938
    I wouldn't go so far as to say that we're descending backwards, the very point of this legislation is that many elements in our government are spooked by the large steps forward that we have been managing to make. With so many religious conservatives, and a hatred of homosexuals quite likely made more keen and raw by our nation's growing acceptance of them in recent years, it's really not surprise that the transition to full legal protection will be a screaming bitter fight. The question is when exactly are they going to settle down and stop putting up these ridiculous barriers to justice.
     
  14. SpyMoose Secret double agent deer Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,641
    Mystech is right. This battle is going on because we are making steps forward. The best the opposition has been able to do so far is try to slow that down, even this whole "civil unions" (the best their regressive minds have been able to come up with) instead of marriage thing is an institution that would have to topple eventually, Its part of our education that "separate but equal" institutions do not work in the US.
     
  15. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,882
    The appearance of a regression in American thought comes because of our priorities. Money and blowing stuff up are always higher priorities to us than feeding folks or ensuring equal rights. It always has been. Of course, something goes here about declining educational standards, the intellectual requirements of liberalism, and the fact that those two issues mean liberalism is only going to represent itself more poorly in the immediate future. (Not quite the "benevolent dictator" theory, but the American left is going to have to accidentally place blind faith in an accidentally benevolent demagogue in order to find their way out of this pit. This is one of those times when evolution will pray for a sudden, seemingly inexplicable leap forward.)

    The American conscience is still intact, and as solid as ever. But our attention spans are declining, and the critical assessment skills of my fellow Americans are sinking into the mire on a steady diet of commerce.

    At some point we'll have to look down, though. And when Americans realize how far they have to fall, you'll see that American conscience leap to life, because most of us are scared of heights.
     
  16. §outh§tar is feeling caustic Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,832
    Montana became the eighth state to add a constitutional marriage referendum to its ballot this year. Supporters of traditional marriage turned in more than 70,000 signatures in June — 46,095 were needed — the Montana secretary of state confirmed Thursday.

    Seems like "dissenters of normalcy" have been dealt a crippling blow.
     
  17. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,882
    Well, I'm curious what that crippling blow is. As this topic notes, such reservations as "traditional marriage" advocates voice apparently need to be protected from the Constitution. How odd.
     
  18. SpyMoose Secret double agent deer Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,641
    Meow. Tiassa, those fingers of your aught to be registered as deadly weapons. Excelent way to put it, and a question that sorely needs addressing. Crusaders for "traditional marriage" why is it that you need protection from the constitution of the United States?
     
  19. §outh§tar is feeling caustic Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,832
    I don't particularly like to dip my toes in these conversations because I'm quite indifferent to marriage but:

    The Constitution of the United States is fallible. Hence Amendments.
     
  20. SpyMoose Secret double agent deer Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,641
    There are indeed amendments, however I would point out several things. First being that the only other amendment to limit the rights of the American people was repealed after it became a national embarrassment, and second that the ball has already been started rolling on the whole no gay marriage amendment thing and it is almost entirely without popular support. So, as perfect as the constitution can be, it is. And right now it and widespread tolerance have created a synergy that is conducive to gay marriage.
     
  21. §outh§tar is feeling caustic Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,832
    Well I was just saying, it's not something that particularly bothers me or keeps me awake at night.

    Just in light of the post I made earlier about Montana, which refutes your claim that "it is almost entirely without support".

    You must idolize your constitution a lot if you hold itself to be it's own standard of perfection. Not that that would be redundant or anything..
     
  22. SpyMoose Secret double agent deer Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,641
    Well, there ain't no law against Idolitry, now is there? The constitution is what makes America work, and America isn't doing so bad overall, so if we Americans attribute some reverence to the constitution, that would probably be the reason.
     

Share This Page