Quite possible that divorce amongst gay and lesbian couples will be much more amicable and not nearly as much of a shit show in the courts. No shotgun weddings, no gender disparity etc.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Armageddon
- Thread starter HAL Pilot
- Start date
Quite possible that divorce amongst gay and lesbian couples will be much more amicable and not nearly as much of a shit show in the courts. No shotgun weddings, no gender disparity etc.
It's all Philo T Famsworth's doing.Along those lines...
http://www.npr.org/2012/05/12/152578740/how-tv-brought-gay-people-into-our-homes&sc=fb&cc=fp
Until the federal government takes them away, states currently have the right to do what they want in this regard. So if the majority of the people in a given state decide one way, the state government should just ignore them? North Carolina only did what their people told them to do, which in turn was what the majority of other states have done. I think it's bizarre to disparage a state for allowing its people only to do what's within their rights: participate in the democratic process.
Agree conceptually, but there can be a fine line between doing what the majority wants (hey, that's democracy, right?) and doing what is legally or morally correct. People can have varying views of gay marriage just like they can have differing views about people's race. If the majority of people wanted to prohibit interracial marriage, would that be a legitimate position for a state to take? I'm not drawing an equivalency between race and sexual orientation, but I think we have to take out the emotional element in some of these issues and decide on laws and policies that take into account what's best for individuals AND society - sometimes that means the government has to stand up to prevent the tyrany of the majority because it's the right thing to do.
From the state's perspective in legal terms, marriage is a contractual agreement between two parties. If two gay guys can legally enter into a contractual business partnership, why would a marriage be any different from a legal POV? All the rest should be matters for the religious establishment, not the state.
Interestingly enough, article 1 of the North Carolina constitution says similar things...
Sec. 3. Internal government of the State.
The people of this State have the inherent, sole, and exclusive right of regulating the internal government and police thereof, and of altering or abolishing their Constitution and form of government whenever it may be necessary to their safety and happiness; but every such right shall be exercised in pursuance of law and consistently with the Constitution of the United States.
Sec. 19. Law of the land; equal protection of the laws.
No person shall be taken, imprisoned, or disseized of his freehold, liberties, or privileges, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any manner deprived of his life, liberty, or property, but by the law of the land. No person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws; nor shall any person be subjected to discrimination by the State because of race, color, religion, or national origin.
So question for the ConLaw students, sea lawyers and states rights champions out there- When DOMA is repealed, will North Carolina (and other states) automatically revoke the amendment to its constitution- especially if the USSC deems DOMA unconstitutional, or is going to take a bigger step such as an amendment to the United States constitution granting everyone the ability to marry for this to happen?
I would bet that when DOMA goes away, there will be a bevy of legal challenges in all the states which currently do not allow gay marriage. It will be interesting to watch, but I'm affraid the eventual end state will be legal gay marriage in all 50 states. Maybe then we can have our politicians get working on actual problems instead of made up ones.
I didn't say they weren't within their legal rights. I'm just saying that they made the wrong decision.
I think its bizarre that people care so much about other people's private business that they take the time to amend the state constitution.
Brett discussed a lot of this in his post...but...to add...
In short, no. Read the 14th Amendment. "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities...without due process of law." The whole point of the Bill or Rights, especially after Gitlow v. New York, was that a majority within a state cannot simply decide to infringe on the civil liberties of another group. That's why it exists. The power of legislation is not without limit and neither is the will of the majority.
"The Framers, when crafting the Bill of Rights, did not purport to 'create' rights. Rather, they designed the Bill of Rights to prohibit our Governments from infringing rights and liberties presumed to be preexisting."
-William J. Brennan
No, I did. They weren't.
I hate political threads, but I'm pleasantly surprised at the reasoned discourse in this thread and not just a bunch of "Them gays creep me out and will get more BAH than me."
Maybe it's just too early in the thread...
