Friday, December 16, 2005

I Now Declare You Husband and Husband

Last week the UK passed a law permitting same sex civil partnerships. Just last month the State of Texas voted into it's constitution an amendment that "marriage is to be between one man and one woman." The vote was 75% to 25% (25% in Texas voting for gay marriage? I didn't know we were that liberal!) Now before getting on Texas, even Oregon voted down gay marriage, and it's a very liberal state. Why the difference? Gay marriage in Briton and nary a whimper?

John Derbyshire has an excellent article in National Review Online here.

I post it b/c it is such an interesting argument, but it somewhat takes American conservatives to task for believing that our church going ways are going to insulate us from things like gay marriage forever. I hope my Irish and British readers take a look!

16 Comments:

At 3:20 AM, Anonymous Frank O'Dwyer said...

Where this will get interesting is when people move from state to state, and country to country, because there are various reciprocal agreements recognising marriages which take place elsewhere.

 
At 12:48 PM, Blogger MonicaR said...

This is where law being made from the bench is dangerous for the reason Frank O'Dwyer has highlighted.

Here, anyway, a whack judge in one state can determine for all states what the law will be. The judges in MA dictated to their legislature what the law should be - and threatened by those judges if the law was not written as they said it should be.

Gay marriage has nothing to do with civil rights. The civil rights movement - and people DIED for civil rights - has been hijacked by radical gays. What really pisses me off about it is that gays were enjoying some of the benefits of marriage and going about it in a perfectly legal way. That's what gays WANTED. Some of the benefits of marriage.

 
At 1:52 PM, Blogger Chas said...

Monica, Unfortunately, Frank makes a point. The Full Faith and Credit Clause in the constitution requires one state to honor contracts made in another. "Defense of Marriage" acts in Texas for instance may get shot down by the Supremes.

How Can that be though? One judge in one state overturning 4000 years of tradition against the will of the majority. Tx doesn't expect mass to have the death penalty!!!

 
At 2:48 PM, Anonymous Frank O'Dwyer said...

How Can that be though?

It's called freedom and equality. Limiting people's rights based on gender, race, religion, or orientation are all discriminatory.

Laws against same sex marriages are no better than laws against inter-racial marriages.

One judge in one state overturning 4000 years of tradition against the will of the majority.

It was traditional to own slaves once, wasn't it?

Besides, any conservative who thinks tradition backs up their notion of marriage is in for a big surprise if they open a history book.

 
At 1:32 AM, Blogger MonicaR said...

I understand the point that Frank was making and I believe that I expounded upon it.

This has nothing to do with gays wanting the 'right' to be married - it never did. It has everything to do with enjoying some of the benefits that married couples enjoy.

 
At 10:39 AM, Blogger Skye said...

Not quite, slavery was LEGAL and a source of cheap labor.

------------------------------
It was traditional to own slaves once, wasn't it?

 
At 10:42 AM, Blogger Skye said...

That's why we have Amendments to the Constitution.

Then again, the supreme court has rarely used referenced the Constitution in the course of deciding if a law is "constitutional".
---------------------------------
The Full Faith and Credit Clause in the constitution requires one state to honor contracts made in another. "Defense of Marriage" acts in Texas for instance may get shot down by the Supremes.

 
At 10:43 AM, Blogger Skye said...

Let me repost:

That's why we have Amendments to the Constitution.

Then again, the supreme court has rarely referenced the Constitution in the course of deciding if a law is "constitutional".
---------------------------------
The Full Faith and Credit Clause in the constitution requires one state to honor contracts made in another. "Defense of Marriage" acts in Texas for instance may get shot down by the Supremes.

 
At 10:44 AM, Blogger Skye said...

Freedom and equality are redefined with every generation.

True freedom expresses the wishes of the majority, NOT the minority.

------------------------------
It's called freedom and equality. Limiting people's rights based on gender, race, religion, or orientation are all discriminatory.

 
At 10:45 AM, Blogger Skye said...

Basic biology trumps any history book.

--------------------------------
any conservative who thinks tradition backs up their notion of marriage is in for a big surprise if they open a history book.

 
At 3:38 PM, Anonymous Frank O'Dwyer said...

True freedom expresses the wishes of the majority, NOT the minority.

True freedom protects minorities from the tryanny of the majority. Your founding fathers understood that even if you do not. That is why the US constitution places limits on what government may do.

Basic biology trumps any history book.

Any conservative who thinks biology backs up their notion of marriage is in for a big surprise if they open a biology book.

 
At 7:21 PM, Blogger Skye said...

Point to the biology book that shows how two human males can procreate.

--------------------------
Any conservative who thinks biology backs up their notion of marriage is in for a big surprise if they open a biology book

 
At 7:44 PM, Blogger Skye said...

Typical liberal logic, completely ass-backwards.

Freedom does not hold minority views superior to that of majority. Freedom respects the will of the people. Which is expressed through their vote.

That is what scares liberals. Anytime an element of a liberal agenda, such as gay marriage, is put to a proper vote by the people, they FAIL.


--------------------------------
True freedom protects minorities from the tryanny of the majority.

 
At 8:04 PM, Blogger Skye said...

This statement illuminates that you are completely out of your depth.

The constitution was written to protect the PEOPLE from the federal government. ALL the people,not only the minority!

If you read, then I suggest you READ the constitution.

------------------------------
That is why the US constitution places limits on what government may do.

 
At 8:58 PM, Anonymous Frank O'Dwyer said...

Point to the biology book that shows how two human males can procreate.

Point to the biology book that shows how an infertile, sterilised, or menopausal heterosexual couple can procreate, or for that matter one which shows how a couple using effective means of birth control can procreate.

And if you're suggesting those people shouldn't be allowed marry either, that's pretty radical, not very conservative at all.

 
At 9:48 PM, Anonymous Frank O'Dwyer said...

The constitution was written to protect the PEOPLE from the federal government. ALL the people,not only the minority!

"ALL the people" still includes the minority. And "ALL the people" can find themselves in the minority some of the time, which is why this should matter to everyone who loves freedom.

Freedom respects the will of the people. Which is expressed through their vote.

Therefore the majority should be allowed to vote away all of your basic rights while keeping them for themselves, and "Freedom respects" that.

Your argument.

But the majority can't simply pass a law that says it's OK to give you a lobotomy because you're already stupid, for example. Nor can they simply vote to lock you up without due process on the basis that you don't understand what individual liberty really means anyway, so you won't really miss it.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home

http://www.forret.com/tools/trackback.asp?title=I Now Declare You Husband and Husband&blog_name=Jeremiah's Helper&url=http://jeremiahshelper.blogspot.com/2005/12/i-now-declare-you-husband-and-husband.html