[Vision2020] California Gay-Marriage Ban Ruled Unconstitutional
David M. Budge
dave at davebudge.com
Mon Mar 14 09:35:28 PST 2005
Sure I've read it. We can obviously take the implication to your point
to ridiculousness. Does a bigamist require equal protection, or
pedophiles, animal sodomists, or those who practice incest require the
same? The implications of morality are cause for public consensus.
That consensus thereby made under the legislative process of a
democratic republic. It does not hold to reason that we cannot
legislate morality. We do it all the time - murder, theft, child abuse,
spousal abuse, rape, incest, polygamy, pornography.... So explain to
me why, under your argument of the 14th Amendment, polygamists and
animal sodomists are not deserving of equal protection.
So when the time comes, as now, that the good argument can be made that
the morality of homosexual partners fits the larger set of morality of
the public, laws should be passed, amended, or repealed. If they are
not, legislatures may, with the support of popular opinion, change
constitutions so the the rights that should be afforded will be become
constitutionally unattainable. Ergo - blowback. That is exactly what
the Federal Marriage Amendment is about.
Listen, I'm pro gay marriage, as I've said. But the 14th Amendment
argument does not pass intellectual scrutiny.
The proper argument is that these are good members of society that do
not harm others in their practices and do not threaten a deleterious
effect on society. They should be afforded the rights and privileges
that others have as to property succession and custodianship. Simple as
that.
If, however, the government would get out of the marriage business this
would all become moot and spousal rights could be afforded in a
construct of contract law.
db
Art Deco wrote:
> David,
>
> Have you not read the 14th Amendment to the United States
> Constitution? I thought this amendment was one of the cornerstones of
> libertarian philosophy.
>
>
>
> Amendment XIV
>
> Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and
> subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States
> and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce
> any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens
> of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life,
> liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any
> person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws...
>
>
> Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)
> deco at moscow.com <mailto:deco at moscow.com>
>
> --- Original Message -----
>
> From: David M. Budge <mailto:dave at davebudge.com>
> To: Tom Hansen <mailto:thansen at moscow.com>
> Cc: vision2020 at moscow.com <mailto:vision2020 at moscow.com>
> Sent: Monday, March 14, 2005 7:20 AM
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] California Gay-Marriage Ban Ruled
> Unconstitutional
>
> Hail Machiavelli! But I warn all that think the ends justify the
> means of the potential blow-back of judges over-ruling legislation
> may just disable judges from doing just that. The CA statute that
> makes marriage between one man and one woman is an issue of
> democracy by legislation. Legislatures have the upper hand and
> can change constitutions. Hence the notion of of "three equal
> legs of government" is false. One's reliance on judicial
> interpretation may some day come back and bite one on one's ass.
>
> Listen, I'm for love and equal rights. The libertarian in me says
> that government should stay the hell out of the marriage business
> (to which I have the concurrence of Nick Gier.)
>
> But just as the Supreme Court made unconstitutional the practice
> of executing minors (the outcome with which I approve as I
> approve of the outcome of the decision in question) the upshot is
> a loss of democracy for residence of the states. Preferably the
> law should be changed by democratic process. In other words, the
> day will likely come when a law that you favor and is mandated by
> majority representation will be overturned by judicial fiat. This
> is the wrong way to run a democracy or a republic.
>
> Justice Brandies may be rolling over in his grave.
>
> db
>
> Tom Hansen wrote:
>
>>Alas! A reason to be proud to be from California.
>>
>>It is a simple matter of equality. Nothing more, nothing less.
>>
>>http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/14/gay.marriage.ap/index.html
>>
>>Tom Hansen
>>Moscow, Idaho
>>
>>
>>"What is objectionable, what is dangerous, about extremists is not that they
>>are extreme, but that they are intolerant. The evil is not what they say
>>about their cause, but what they say about their opponents."
>>
>>-- Robert F. Kennedy
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>_____________________________________________________
>> List services made available by First Step Internet,
>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>> http://www.fsr.net
>> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _____________________________________________________
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> http://www.fsr.net
> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> /////////////////////////////////////////////////////
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_____________________________________________________
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> http://www.fsr.net
> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20050314/01da4034/attachment-0001.htm
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list