[Vision2020] California Gay-Marriage Ban Ruled Unconstitutional

[Art Deco]

You cannot be arguing seriously.

If a man and a woman can enter a marriage contract which insures the application/protection of certain civil laws, the applying the language of the 14th Amendment below, then a man and man or a woman and woman deserve the same protection of the laws.  Marriage is a legal, civil union in law.  Pedestry is not.


Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)
deco at moscow.com

----- Original Message ----- 
  From: David M. Budge 
  To: Art Deco 
  Cc: Vision 2020 
  Sent: Monday, March 14, 2005 9:35 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vision2020] California Gay-Marriage Ban Ruled Unconstitutional


  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the morality of homosexual partners  fits the larger set of morality of the public, laws should be passed, amended, or repealed.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


    --- Original Message ----- 

      From: David M. Budge 
      To: Tom Hansen 
      Cc: 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/20050314/58d99273/attachment.htm