The Constitution is very specific about the kind of laws states can make. Take a look at Amendment XIV, Section I
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.
It seems pretty clear to me. The following states are in absolute violation of this amendment:
- Alabama
- Alaska
- Arizona
- Arkansas
- California
- Colorado
- Delaware
- Florida
- Georgia
- Hawaii
- Idaho
- Illinois
- Indiana
- Kansas
- Kentucky
- Louisiana
- Maryland
- Michigan
- Minnesota
- Mississippi
- Missouri
- Montana
- Nebraska
- New Hampshire
- Nevada
- North Carolina
- North Dakota
- Ohio
- Oklahoma
- Oregon
- Pennsylvania
- South Carolina
- South Dakota
- Tennessee
- Texas
- Utah
- Vermont
- Virginia
- Washington
- Wisconsin
- West Virginia
- Wyoming
In one form or another, they have all banned same sex marriage and, as a result, citizens who are in same sex relationships do not have the same rights that married people do.
So, if you hear people screaming on the news about their Constitutional rights being violated, ask them about this list. See if they can justify what is clearly a violation of their rights.
Of course, many of these people, in addition to thinking we still live in the year 1867, think that the amendments to the Constitution stop at ten:) Oh, wait. That would mean we still live in the year 1794.
My bad.
12 comments:
Technically speaking, all the states grant every individual the right to marry a person of the opposite gender. If you want to marry a person of the "wrong" gender, all you need to do is get your gender reassigned.
Assuming that these states don't prohibit gender reassignment and will recognize gender reassigned individuals as their new gender, you just need to undergo a dangerous and mutilating surgical procedure to be with the person you love.
Seriously, this is just another law that will fall by the wayside as the older generation dies off. Remember back when divorce was anathema, the destruction of nuclear family unit, something that the pope himself had to approve (and then it was usually finessed into an annulment instead of a full-on divorce)?
Well, conservatives have embraced divorce like nobody's business. Guys like Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich like divorce so much they've done it twice! Glenn Beck is the piker, he's only been divorced once (after having serious problems with drinking and smoking pot). Then there's Bob Dole and Ronald Reagan, and all those guys like Ensign, Michel, Sanford, Craig, and all the rest of the conservatives who've had extra-marital affairs and don't really believe all that hooey about the sanctity of marriage. Or were those affairs actually caused by the threat of gay marriage?
Some conservatives (Dick and Mary Cheney) appear to be in favor of gay marriage, but refused to say so in 2004 when the Republicans used it as another one of those election year constitutional amendment gimmicks they immediately forget about after winning. As time goes on, if the Libertarian wing of the Republican Party gains more power one would assume that opposition to gay marriage will fade as well. I mean, what the hell are state and federal governments doing telling me who I can marry?
Still waiting to hear what all the wonderful things are in the health care reform act.
Heck, it's the law, don't we get to know what is in it NOW?
Gay marriage? Hell, SCotUS just threw out anti-sodomy laws 7 years ago. Although bans on sex toys are still constitutional. None of which should be the subject of either national legislation or jurisprudence - because you CAN'T cite a provision of the constitution that makes the federal govt the guarantor of [your] moral preferences. Want to go back and talk about the Mann Act?
If Alabama wants to ban sex toys and Texas wants to ban homosexual activities - absent a general provision of privacy at the federal level (and please quote something more substantial than Griswold if you're going to try), then that is the prerogative of those states and their citizens. I sure wouldn't care to live under such a regime, but then I am not obligated to. The general police power was exclusively reserved to the states, and that means they get to use that for morality if they so choose. I think that sucks in some cases, but enforcing a single standard on the whole country could suck a lot worse.
I very much hope California legalizes marijuana this fall - as a very BIG fuck you to the feds.
Fucking idiot progressive/liberals are no different from fucking idiot conservatives these days - both want to use the federal govt to IMPOSE their vision on the country.
The Constitution is very specific about the kind of laws states can make.
Not really. It is however, very specific about the laws that CONGRESS can make. You should know this of course, but being that liberal/progressive politics trump all other considerations, you pretend that you don't.
Just to be very clear, let's consult with Mr. Madison's opinion on this topic.
From Federalist #45: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite."
Pretty straight-forward, wouldn't you say?
What does the 10 Amdt have to say on the matter? The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Hmm, that's pretty straight-foward too!
Now, does the 14th Amdt really alter that? The language of the 14th makes specific reference to the "privileges and immunities" in the Constitution - and that those should be secured without bias to all citizens (most pertinently to the newly freed of the South), and made binding ON the states, the existing limitations on federal power. Since marriage law was never the province of the federal govt, it is a stretch to claim that now - just for this particular purpose.
Now, I suppose you'll bring up Loving, which was correctly decided but for the wrong reason. The marriage contract authorized by the state of Maryland was valid. Virginia law cannot over-rule that, even if Virginia would not have issued the Lovings a marriage license. The Constitutional clause is called "full faith and credit", and that is the proper rationale - not due process. But hey, that was the Warren Court, and they never were too bright about a lot of shit - say like Griswold (from which nearly all this crap derives).
markadelphia are you really a teacher?
are you really a teacher?
He certainly doesn't seem to be a learner.
The scariest part to me is the assumption in a teacher that unless you're pitching a screaming fit over this alleged violation of rights, you have no business griping about any other violation of people's rights, real or imagined.
In short, if there is a single instance where you agree with my opponents' abrogation of rights, that validates every abrogation of rights my friends and allies attempt.
A teacher considers that a valid line of argument. He considers that a valid example of "critical thinking".
So some people still think there is a right to be married. If I wasn't married, would the government issue me a spouse?
It's not that people should have the right to be married. They should have the same rights that married people enjoy under the law. If the law were changed so that civil unions had the same rights as married couples then the problem would be solved but many of the states on this list don't allow same sex civil unions either.
This means that people who aren't "unionized" in the eyes of the state are "less than" citizens that are unionized. So Mark's point is well taken and the Constitution is clear in the section that he quoted. States can't make laws that take away privileges from citizens nor deny them liberty.
No one has a right to anything that requires a license from the state: hunting, driving, and yes, marriage.
Note that you do NOT need a license to procreate - married or not. Personally, I think we could solve a lot of problems if we did - but I shudder to think of the implications.
There sure are some people who should not procreate, hah!
But, juris, the marriage license entitles you to rights like visitation during hospital stays and custodianship of minors. Take those rights out of marriage from the civil side and put them in something else and everyone is happy. Mark's said as much on this blog although I can't remember the post.
I think PL also said something awhile back about it too. I came across a comment of his when I did a search on gay marriage for all the posts on here about it and found something but I don't remember which article. Before my time.
Mark's said as much on this blog although I can't remember the post.
But that isn't what he is saying here, nor does he appear to accept that civil unions answer the mail. And this is, for better or worse, a STATE issue, not a federal one.
The point is, the state gets to set a 'standard' for issuance of a license - whether sound or stupid. That does NOT translate into an automatic violation of 14th Amdt due process or equal protection. And that is exactly what M argued.
I don't have time to debate this, but I do have a question that's just begging to be posted:
Would "same-sex marriage" and heterosexual marriage exactly the same in every respect? (That's presuming that Mark got his wish of equal legal recognition)
Post a Comment