By Antonio D. French
Filed Wednesday, June 07, 2006 at 11:29 AM
Senator Jim Talent voted this morning against a filibuster by Senate Democrats on a proposed Constitutional amendment to outlaw homosexuals from marrying. Talent is a co-sponsor of the amendment which conservatives say would preserve the "traditional definition of marriage." Labels: U.S._Senate_Race
"This issue represents a big difference between me and my opponent," said Talent in an email to supporters today. "Claire McCaskill supports gay marriage and recently she told the media she's opposed to a Constitutional Amendment to protect traditional marriage."
A spokesperson for McCaskill said the state auditor doesn't think the Senate should be spending time on the issue.
"Claire has always believed that marriage is between a man and a woman. And like John Danforth and Vice-President Cheney, she thinks federal action on this issue is unnecessary," said spokeswoman Adrianne Marsh.
9 Comments:
If I were Claire, I would have attacked the legislation as being the legalization of private morals. I would also have attacked Talent for promoting an Amendment that limits rights, which would be the first Amendment in the history of the United States to do so.
Private morals should not be public policy.
Furthermore, if this passes, which it will not, I would expect a lawsuit under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, since such an Amendment would be marital discrimination. Marriage is a fundamental right, thus discrimination on the basis of gender, as it applies to marriage, is suspect, and under strict judicial scrutiny.
Strict scrutiny means that the state must show a compelling state interest in order to discriminate. This level of scrutiny places the burden on the state, and the state must show actual proof, not simply moral arguments.
The justification for the Amendment is to preserve the moral view of marriage. Judicial precedent shows that moral justification is not a compelling state interest, therefore under strict scrutiny, this Amendment would be contrary to the Equal Protection Clause, thus unconstitutional.
If the right for same sex marriage was incorporated into the 14th Amendment, that would be a great day, however, if a case dealing with gay marriage reaches the Supreme Court, and it will, the Court will probably look at Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down the TX State Law banning Sodomy.
We will have to see.
6/07/2006 12:09 PM
As the political pendulum swings in America, if such an amendment were some how able to garner not only the necessary votes in Congress, but also miraculously make it through the votes in the requisit number of state houses for ratification, it would eventually be repealed, as was the 18th Amendment.
6/08/2006 12:45 AM
I think gays should stay gay. married is a man and woman. Im not against gays but i would like to keep marrage between a man an woman. Hey, I have a few gay friends, I tell them all the time, look, screw yourselves, not me. leave my way of life out of your, its very obvious that two men or two women cannot be married. Being married is more than a life of commmitment. You could have that without being
"married" Its also very obvious that two of the same sex cant reproduct, like against nature, HELLO! People are not born gay, I have some friends that tell me they were, I also have more friends that say they chose that life after some events that happend to them, or for whatever reason. so BE GAY "HAPPY" by definition and live on, but I would like to keep some of my own rights too, I also dont understand why people make it seem like you have to be a conservative to be against gay marrage? Why is that? Cant you just be against that one thing and not be a conservative?
6/08/2006 10:43 PM
So marriage is only for couples who can physically have children? I think a lot of straight couples willingly forgoing or unable to have their own children would easily disagree.
Marriage is the union of any two souls for a lifelong commitment of mutual love, care and respect. And frankly, it is human nature to pair up.
Marriage takes work, like any relationship. Children can be an added blessing to life, including for those who are married. But children are neither a requirement or entrapment to marriage.
Sadly, anyone with a viewpoint like the poster above is likely headed to divorce court when they become an empty-nester.
6/09/2006 9:31 AM
You said "So marriage is only for couples who can physically have children? I think a lot of straight couples willingly forgoing or unable to have their own children would easily disagree." Now naturally a man and woman will be able to have children but in some cases they have trouble or cant. but with a same sex couple, they could never ever have children. I know your not that stupid! Have your gay relationship and be happy why would a gay person even care to be married? how does it benefit them? They cant start a family, HELLO. What gets me is you find a man, who doesnt like women will find another man who acts like a women to be with? he doesnt what the real thing but wants his buddy and sticks him where the sun doesnt shine, c'mon, you know somethings wrong with that, I have gay friends and mess with them all the time, I love you weather your gay or straight, they make fun of me about stuff and I do the same but I cant understand how marriage benefits gay couples, outside of the legal benefits, which most gays just like most people who are straight are not in position to take advantage of such benefits.
6/09/2006 12:42 PM
"Have your gay relationship and be happy why would a gay person even care to be married? how does it benefit them?"
How about tax benefits, hospital visits, and credit history.
Marriage is a fundamental liberty, which should not be excluded due to sexual preference.
"They cant start a family, HELLO"
Family is subjective. In developing countries in includes cousins, uncles, grandparents, etc. In developed countries, this is generally simply the nuclear family, however the definition of family changes on the basis of need and want. In this manner two people are a family.
"he doesnt what the real thing but wants...(ignorant statements)."
1. Learn to spell and formulate logical thoughts in sentences.
2. Read Buck v. Bell (1927)
Once you have completed steps 1 and 2, I recommend you call a Doctor and undertake the program outlined in the aforementioned Supreme Court Case. If you cannot understand the central concept evident in Buck v. Bell, then I suggest the procedure.
Buck v. Bell demonstrates that government is able to violate the liberties of individuals, especially when the wishes of the government coincide with latest social mores or fad. The State of Virginia performed thousands of these procedures before the law was removed.
The societal opposition to gay marriage, and the movement to ban gay marriage is comparable to Buck v Bell in that government is acquiescing to the wishes of society, regardless of the individual. Can you see this problem, since marriage is a fundamental right?
The words of the "Humane" Justice Holmes:
"It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind."
"Three generations of imbeciles are enough"
6/09/2006 2:09 PM
are animals naturally gay? why are humans? the family is not different everywhere in the world, its the same, my sister will always be that, my cousin will always be that my parents will always be that, gay people will never do two things:
1. Be natural parents.
2. Produce a natural family!
3. Experience Marriage.
Marriage is something only a man and a woman can have, its more than a commitment. If you are married then you know what im talking about. there is something different when your able to have your own kids and grow together as a family, passing a gay marriage bill will never produce that, the bill is not what produces the marriage just like a committed relationship is not what produces a marriage, its something else, something you cant quite put your finger on but if your married with kids you know what im talking about, gays cant have children, the cant produce a natural family, why in the world do they care about passing a bill??? I think they just want to be accepted in society and this is one way for them to feel accepted as normal people, because honestly most feel rejected and abnormal.
6/09/2006 3:06 PM
I am not gay, but I support the gay marriage effort. To me, marriage is more of legal commitment than a lifelong commitment of mutual love and respect. Face it, heterosexual marriages often fail with acrimony.
Doug's points about insurance, taxes, and credit are only the tip of the iceberg. Married couples get special treatment because they are married. I'm not complaining about that, but I think that gays are entitled to that treatment, too, if they are willing to have a state-sanctioned relationship.
Gay people often are natural parents. They often have healthy relationships with children even though they share their lives with someone of the same sex. They can, and often do, have those lifelong relationships of mutual love and respect that some straight couples have. Why shouldn't they have the same rights?
I don't care what it's called--marriage, same-sex unions, whatever--but we have to acknowledge that gay people should not be left out of a legal relationship just because they are of the same gender.
As far as this making a mockery of marriage, I don't think heterosexuals need help damaging the reputation of marriage. Sure there are a lot of healthy and happy marriages, with or without children. But too many straight couples decide against marriage, with or without children. Gays simply want what many heterosexuals are rejecting--a legally sanctioned relationship that offers partners certain rights.
6/09/2006 3:46 PM
Ok, I want to jump in on the fun here too.
I know many gay parents, either that were previously in heterosexual marriages, sought surogate services, or that adopted. So, it is possible for gay folks to have children, even naturally. Some seem to want them, while other, like some heterosexuals choose not to.
Marriage is not just about procreation. In fact, marriage is is merely a legal institution, which parallels a religious institution in many religions, but not all. I recently met some Mormons that have a very interesting take on binding two soles for eternity (no, not polygamy for those HBO's "Big Love" watchers).
Like Doug pointed out, marriage has legal and financial implications. I think it is that which those gay couples wanting to be married want. Frankly, being divorced, I'm not sure why anyone would want to be married (that is a joke, of course).
Well, I wasn't going to weigh in on this to begin with, so I've likely written enough. I have to say though, I am glad that this discussion has been kept civil, because far too often sensative debates, such as this, can get very offensive. Good job keeping this intelligent and respectful, all.
6/10/2006 1:10 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home