Bush Opposes Gay Marriage?

[Rick Munroe]

>Or did he leave that out?

 

You know, he did leave that out. Okay, you convinced me; I'm voting for Bush.

[Doug69]

>You know, he did leave that out. Okay, you convinced me; I'm

>voting for Bush.

 

At least with regard to the issue of same-sex marriage, Howard Dean and George Bush have identical views.

 

One wonders: How can you so enthusiastically support, and vote for, a candidate who thinks that the law ought to exclude gay people from the institution of marriage?

 

For all those people who love to call others "self-hating" on the ground that they have different political views, isn't it "self-hating", at least according to those who so casually use that term, to support a candidate, such as Dean, who believes that that the venerable institution of marriage will become desecreated, demeaned and diluted unless it continues to exclude gay couples?

[Rick Munroe]

>Dean, who believes

>that that the venerable institution of marriage will become

>desecreated, demeaned and diluted unless it continues to

>exclude gay couples?

 

When has he said that? I can't find the quote anywhere.

[trilingual]

>But is it also correct that, under Federal law, couples

>married in Vermont have rights that are not extended to those

>people who have a civil union in Vermont? If so, does the

>distinction hold for heterosexual couples who, for one reason

>or another, also contract civil unions in Vermont?

>

>If so, and as the "Defense (sic) of Marriage Act" codifies,

>the Federal government does in fact interfere in the states'

>rights to determine whether or not a couple can enter into a

>marriage or civil union. If the Immigration Service (sic)

>discriminates and if the IRS discriminates, both federal

>agencies, in effect, deny the states' right to equate a civil

>union with a marriage. As somebody pointed out just now,

>therefore, the Defense of Marriage Act is almost certainly

>unconstitutional. But I wonder if the IRS and the Immigration

>Service's regulations aren't also unconstitutional, if, in

>fact, they rest on the possibility of negating the states'

>right to determine the composition of a marriage and/or a

>civil union.

 

Well, at least logically your reading would seem to be correct, because regulation of marriage is considered to be exclusively a right reserved to the states under the U.S. Constitution. So DOMA and any other federal laws or regulations that refuse to recognize lawful marriages in any of the states would seem to be unconstitutional. But the issue hasn't been tested in the courts yet, so we don't know the answer. For starters, we'd have to get an answer to the question of whether the fact that same-sex civil unions in Vermont are called by a different name makes them somehow different than "marriage," even though "civil unions" and "marriages" in Vermont confer exactly the same rights and responsibilities, and are entered into and dissolved in the same way. You raise a really good equal protection question when you ask whether the U.S. would recognize as valid a Vermont civil union between heterosexuals but not one between homosexuals. My guess is that the U.S. would recognize a heterosexual civil union because it's indistinguishable from "marriage" and is somewhat more than a so-called "common law" marriage, which the U.S. will recognize if entered into in a state where such a relationship is legal. So if the feds will honor a heterosexual "common law" marriage called a "civil union" in Vermont, then it would seem to be awfully hard to argue that the U.S. isn't required to recognize a similar same-sex civil union.

 

Just pray that a DOMA-type amendment to the Constitution never becomes a reality. Not only would it be personally devastating to every gay person, it would also be a complete repudiation of everything this country and its founders stood for, because it would be the first constitutional provision in U.S. history deliberately EXCLUDING some citizens from enjoying equal rights with the rest of their fellow Americans.

[guyinsf]

Unfortunately your argument depends on honesty and rational decision making. I think that the apparent discrepancies you point out are simple to explain if you believe (as I do) that the political and social views of the people involved inform their decision making.

 

I appreciate the fact that the majority of candidates of both the major parties endorse anti-gay laws and speak anti-gay rhetoric, but I don't think the Democrats and Republicans, as a whole, can be equated. There is obviously a faction of the Republican party (including those in leadership positions) who are far more obsessed with promoting an anti-gay agenda.

 

>>I don't think this has happened yet. And, I do think when

>one

>>state allows marriage, that the Federal law will be

>challenged

>>and with the current makeup of the Supreme Court, wouldn't

>>this tend to make you believe that the Federal law would be

>>struck down?

>

>This is a very interesting issue, and unforutately (or

>fortunately), the outcome is far from clear, although I think

>that the unconstitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act

>(DOMA) is painfully clear.

>

>What's so interesting is that, from a constitutional and legal

>perspective, DOMA is probably one of the most

>anti-conservative pieces of federal legislation ever enacted.

>DOMA is so offensive to states' rights - which has, since the

>formation of the Republic, confined the power to define

>"marriage" exclusively to the States -- that it's

>difficult to imagine a law which overstepped the bounds of

>Federal power more overtly than this law.

>

>As a result, it should be the judicial conservatives who are

>most constitutionally hostile to DOMA (even though they want

>to keep the law), and it should be the judicial liberals who

>most vigorously defend the law (even though they want to get

>rid of it).

>

>Over the past 5-7 years, there have been numerous federal laws

>which the U.S. Supreme Court has invalidated on the ground

>that those laws attempted to regulate areas which were

>traditionally and constitutionally the province of the States

>to regulate. Those laws which were stricken on this ground

>constituted a far less severe invasion into the rights of the

>States than DOMA entails, and those laws were struck down by

>the conservative-moderate wing of the Court, with the liberal

>wing voting to uphold them.

>

>If those justices have any intellectual consistency at all

>(and who, really, at this point believes they do?), the

>conservative judges ought to be eager to strike down DOMA as

>an intolerable abridgement of states' rights, and the liberal

>judges ought to be vigorously defending it as a proper

>exercise of federal power. Somehow, that scenario is hard to

>imagine, to say the least. So, although DOMA is plainly

>unconstitutional on the ground of federalism/states' rights,

>the outcome of a constitutional challenge remains unclear.

>

>Another quite compelling reason why DOMA is unconstitutional

>is because the Constitution mandates that the laws and

>judgments of one State be given "full Faith and Credit" in all

>of the United States. It has been extremely common - and

>still is - for states to have different laws definining

>"marriage." In the South, for instance, many states allowed

>girls who were 13 years old to marry, even though such couples

>could not get married in, say, Northern states. But, the

>Constitution required that the Northern states give "full

>Faith and Credit" to the Southern States' laws and judgments,

>and they wree thus required to recognize and treat that couple

>as married, even though that couple could not legally marry

>in the Northern state.

>

>Although there have been some very narrow exceptions

>recognized to this doctrine where States are not required to

>recognize other States' laws, those exceptions have always

>been very narrowly applied (lest they eat up the rule), and

>have never, as far I know, been applied to marriage laws

>before.

>

>Sorry if this sounded like a legal brief, but you asked.

>

[Guest]

>If so, and as the "Defense (sic) of Marriage Act" codifies,

>the Federal government does in fact interfere in the states'

>rights to determine whether or not a couple can enter into a

>marriage or civil union. If the Immigration Service (sic)

 

I don't know why you're writing "sic" after Defense of marriage act." That's exactly how's it's spelled in the law. The division of the Homeland Security Department involved with immigration is called the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services (BCIS, formerly the INS).

[Rick Munroe]

>One wonders: How can you so enthusiastically support, and

>vote for, a candidate who thinks that the law ought to exclude

>gay people from the institution of marriage?

 

Doug, I just read that after Dean signed Vermont's civil unions into law, he received death threats, was called a fag & had to wear a bulletproof vest. As someone on Dean's blog posted today: "How can any homosexual criticize Dean for not going far enough for their cause? Anyone that gets death threats, is called 'faggot' by hundreds of Republicans, and has to wear a bullet proof vest deserves some respect." Also, a few days ago in SF, he came out (sorry for the pun) in support of gays in the military and the elimination of "don't ask, don't tell." That's how I can so enthusiastically support him.

[TotallyOz]

Well Rick, I have sat here an listened to your comments about Dean for long enough. I had to check things out for myself and I have been to his websites and have talked to politician friends of mine and I have come to the conclusion that you are right. I am now in your (his) camp. I sent in my first donation today and I can't wait to do whatever I can to help this man. He isn't perfect but he is the closest thing we've got to our side right now. Thanks for pointing me down the right road (yellow of course and Toto is with me).

[Rick Munroe]

>I had to check things out for myself

>and I have been to his websites and have talked to politician

>friends of mine and I have come to the conclusion that you are

>right.

 

That's so cool. I keep thinking that all anyone has to do is read the facts about Dean and they'll see how great he is. Now that he's getting all this press, I hope more people will do just that.

 

>Thanks for pointing me down the

>right road (yellow of course and Toto is with me).

 

I actually hesitated about getting too political on here but then I realized that this is way too important and there is too much at stake. I figured if I could get just one person to check him out & support him, it would be worth it. Oh, and I just sent in some more money, too. It's so empowering to be a part of this "people-powered" revolution.

[Rick Munroe]

>I can't wait to do whatever I can to help

>this man.

 

Are you going to the Dean Meetup in your city, this Wednesday at 7 PM? http://dean2004.meetup.com/ That's where Derek and I will be in NYC. I hear we'll be hand-writing letters to undecided voters in New Hampshire. I hope I can remember how to use a pen and paper.

[Flower]

Well yes and no

 

The real question is: CAN HE GET ELECTED?

 

I have my doubts. I've been following him for a while and like what he stands for, says and has done--BUT, he's a little boring:-( and I don' think he will be able to beat Bush.

 

John Kerry on the other hand, seems pretty good to us (although not as good as Dean) and I feel more likely to beat Bush. I think we're better off with Kerry in the White House rather than Bush with Dean as an also ran.

[woodlawn]

>>One wonders: How can you so enthusiastically support, and

>>vote for, a candidate who thinks that the law ought to

>exclude

>>gay people from the institution of marriage?

 

>Doug, I just read that after Dean signed Vermont's civil

>unions into law, he received death threats, was called a fag &

>had to wear a bulletproof vest. As someone on Dean's blog

>posted today: "How can any homosexual criticize Dean for not

>going far enough for their cause? Anyone that gets death

>threats, is called 'faggot' by hundreds of Republicans, and

>has to wear a bullet proof vest deserves some respect."

 

That really doesn't make any sense. According to what I've read (in last week's Times), Vermont's legislature enacted the civil union law because the state's supreme court ruled that the state could not deprive gay couples of the rights conferred by state law on married couples. Dean sat back and let the legislature do the work, then signed the bill once it was done. If he then got death threats, it was because a few idiots didn't realize the impetus for the legislation came from elsewhere. How does that make Dean a hero? Is he a hero simply because he didn't veto the bill?

 

How can gays criticize Dean for not going far enough? Well, by saying that he still doesn't support gay marriage. That is true, isn't it? Either he thinks gays should have the same right to legal recognition of their marriages as others or he doesn't -- there's nothing in between.

 

As to how gays can support Dean regardless of his opposition to gay marriage -- they can remember that they are part of a coalition, and that in a coalition each group always gets some of what it wants while no group always gets all of what it wants. That's how political coalitions are supposed to work.

[Rick Munroe]

>I have my doubts. I've been following him for a while and

>like what he stands for, says and has done--BUT, he's a little

>boring:-( and I don' think he will be able to beat Bush.

 

Actually, I think he's the only candidate who can beat Bush. As for his being boring, I'm not sure other people would agree with you there. I read his blog daily and it's filled with stories of people who were practically moved to tears when listening to him speak. He's a very powerful motivational no-bullshit speaker; he gave me chills when I saw his official declaration speech. He has the most volunteers of any campaign in US history (over 70,000 people are attending Dean meetups across the country tomorrow) and thousands are signing up as Dean supporters everyday (255,173 as of midnight last night). I don't think someone perceived as boring could motivate so many people to get involved in politics for the first time in their lives. Kerry sure isn't doing it.

 

I still love my Flower, though. :*

 

P.S. Don't forget to watch Larry King at 9 PM EST.