[Vision2020] California Gay-Marriage Ban Ruled Unconstitutional
Art Deco
deco at moscow.com
Mon Mar 14 19:38:37 PST 2005
A marriage contract between two people is a legal, government enabled act. Hence, any two people are entitled to the protection/application of the law. At present neither polygamy nor bestiality is legal. Just like thieves, murderers, and others those who practice such are not entitled to equal protection of those acts but they are entitled to due process under the 14th Amendment.
The point of equal protection is if an act such as marriage, property ownership, voting, etc. is legal for one group of persons (notice the lack of racial, gender, economic language) then it is legal for all persons.
The 14th Amendment is the legal basis for almost all U.S. Supreme Court Civil Rights Cases, including the right to non-segregated school, bus seats, inter-racial marriages, the rights of religious groups to be treated the same as non-religious groups when renting public facilities, the right to vote regardless of race or gender, etc. The 14th Amendment prevents discrimination on the basis of race, gender, religious belief, ethnic origin, etc. of "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof."
The 14th Amendment does not sanction crime. It does, however, prevent the federal, state and local governments from making an act a crime solely based on gender, religious belief, ethnic origin, etc.
If multi-person marriages were made legal, then the 14th Amendment would prevent laws that would allow a two man, one woman marriage but not allow a two woman, one man marriage. Until multi-person marriages are legal, then its practitioners are not entitled to equal protection for that institution.
If sex acts between persons and Herefords were made legal, then the 14th Amendment would entitle sex acts between persons and anguses to be legal.
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 11:17 AM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] California Gay-Marriage Ban Ruled Unconstitutional
Your answer is non-responsive. Answer my question please.
"So explain to me why, under your argument of the 14th Amendment, polygamists and animal sodomists are not deserving of equal protection."
I agree with your point. I can't agree with your logic. It fails.
db
Art Deco wrote:
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
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
_____________________________________________________
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/e97332a9/attachment-0001.htm
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list