Marriage, Back door laws and policies, and tolerance issues

Remove all ads!

I would just like to reiterate my disgust with the gay community for its ongoing attempts to defile the divine institution of marriage (and thus lessen the sanctity of my own marriage), and with the government for continuing to erode the basic principle of freedom of religion.

 

Welcome to the boards, Splarff....

 

Coffee, meet keyboard.

Thanks, I needed that today.

 

Actually, I was going to go with Gnunge, but Splarff will do just as well.

 

A Representative from a right leaning constituency will likely vote as the constituents wish (that's good democracy) even though he or she may disagree with an issue (that's poor governance, but good democracy.) They have to be more responsive to the opinions of their constituents because they face reelection every 2 years.

Senators are different. They have nice 6 year terms. Plenty of time for the constituents to forget this vote, and plenty of time to do other things that pander to the electorate and therefore increase the chances of reelection. They can afford to make some votes that their constituents won't like. Representatives can't do that near as much.

Quite right -- that was my own conclusion -- I'm sorry if I made it sound like it was in the article.

I see the 82% as pretty amazing. The House at 67% is not (I didn't do the math on that one -- 67% is barely a 2/3s margin)

Of course there are! I never said that my thought was the only possible explanation. I think mine has merit, but I don't think it's the only one in town.

 

I'm not as familiar with Vermont, but it should be noted that just beacuse US Senators serve 6 year terms, it does not necessarily follow that Vermont Senators have 6 year terms. Maryland Senators, for example, have 4 year terms. Also, even if they are 6 year terms in Vermont (and they very well could be - I don't know either way!) 1/3 of the Senate would run every 2 years.

 

And this is exactly what the judiciary branch SHOULD NOT do! It isn't their job to decide what further's governmental objectives, or which objectives should be prioritized. It is their job to determine whether a law is enforcable (i.e. not too vague) and constitutional (i.e. does not contradict the constitution). The mere fact that the constitution does not explicitly support such a law should not be sufficient grounds to revoke the law. IMO, Justice Mark Cady stepped well out of his role as a judge and far into the role of the legislature.

 

You beat me to the punch. If I could give you a million rep I would. When conservatives complain about "activist judges" this is what they are complaining about.

 

NOG, that's not the way I read it at all. While I agree that it isn't a judge's job to decide what furthers governmental objectives, the court is saying that unless denying homosexuals the right to marry furthers some objective, then there is no reason to deny them this right. It is very much a judge's job to determine constitutionality. Any right given in a constitution is a right possessed by everyone, unless for some reason there is a need to exclude a particular group of people. I read the statement of:

to mean that they cannot deny this right to anyone without good cause. That the constitution does not explicity support such a law is moot, in that it is implicit that the laws set forth in a constitution apply equally to everyone.

 

Exactly, Aldeth.

Then I would say these conservatives don't understand the role of the judiciary.

 

Fair enough -- I made an assumption here.

 

But again, this isn't theirs to say. This is the job of the legislature, to determine whether or not there is reason to provide or deny someone benefits under the law.

The State constitution may be different than the national, but I don't believe marriage is a constitutional right (at least not under the national laws), but rather one of the rights reserved for the states and individuals in the 10th ammendment. That means that it is expected for the states to handle this on a case-by-case basis. Now, if marriage is designated as a uniform right in the State Constitution, then the judges acted rightly, but spoke wrongly, because then there should be no consideration of cause to revoke the right that isn't spelled out. If the US Congress decided to revoke the right to protection from unreasonable search and seizure from all immigrants, the Supreme Court would strike it down in a second. And assuming a right to be present in the constitution when it is never spoken of or even hinted at (such as the right to privacy, anyone?) is some of the shakiest legal grounds I have ever seen.

So it was not just morally wrong, but blatantly unconstitutional to deny the right to vote to blacks or women for over a century? That's denying a citizen a right granted to other citizens, and I didn't really see any attempt to put forth a reason for a long time.

The rights granted in the constitution are absolute, correct, but those not granted in the constitution should not be assumed. The right to own a switchblade knife is not universal, nor the right to own a crossbow. The right to drive a car is not universal, nor should it be. And as to appropriate reasons for having a law, I again believe this is the role of the legislature, not the judiciary. It is the role of the legislature to decide what laws have reason to be implemented (whether the reason is clearly shown or not) and how to best implement them. The judiciary is there to see that the laws are constitutional and that they are properly enforced. When necessary, the judiciary can interpret the laws, but it is not their job to decide if there is sufficient reason for the law.


Now, again, if the right to marriage is spelled out in their state constitution, then that's something else all together, but my quick search of it didn't find anything. If any lawyers know better, please correct me.

 

And your point was... ? Prejudice is an ugly thing. It sometimes takes a long time to correct when there is significant bias in the populace -- you gave two great examples and this thread is a third.

 

This is exactly correct. In fact, BTA's response is broad enough to even serve as a reply to what NOG said about my post. By NOGs logic, it would be A-OK for the legislature to pass a law that said republicans would lose thier right to vote. Of course, the legislature cannot do this because of the equal protection clause.

Two ancillary points - 1) The equal protection clause is in the US Constitution so it's applicable everywhere, regardless of whether an individual state has an equal protection clause in its constitution. 2) That marriage is not covered specifically in the US constituion or whether or not it is specifically covered in the state constitution is irrelevant if you make the arguement from the equal protection clause.

The bottom line is that everyone has to be given the same rights unless there is a sufficient reason to deny those rights. Therefore the onus is on the legislature to prove that gay marriage would be damaging enough to the community that they should be barred from marrying. The onus is NOT (even though it has often been portrayed in this way) on the gay community to prove they should be allowed to marry.

 

Ok, the equal protection clause is a good point, and I didn't realize it was actually in the US Constitution. On those grounds, you are correct.

I believe this is incorrect, because I'm pretty sure the right to vote is spelled out in the Constitution, so a law denying it to anyone would be unconstitutional regardless of an equal-protection clause.

Thank you all for the enlightenment.

 

Well, I’m no U.S. constitutional expert, but I believe the right to vote is dealt with here

So if I’m reading it correctly, citizens can be denied the right to vote as long as the denial isn’t based on race, color, or previous incarceration. I think there might have been an amendment which adds gender to the list.