At 11:13 AM 2/28/2004 -0700 Michael Harney wrote:
>> You mean, the same Supreme Court that decided Roe vs. Wade and Casey vs.
>> Pennsylvania?
>
>No, it is not the same supreme court that issued Roe v. Wade. As for Casey
>v. Pennsylvania, I am simply unfamiliar with it. There are many judges on
>the court now that were not there for Roe v. Wade. That is why I chose the
>example of the ballots in Florida. It's the same judges then that would
>rule if the case were to go to the Supreme Court now. If they issued what I
>would dare say that you considered a fair ruling in the Florida Ballots
>case, why would they suddenly lend themselves to liberal judicial activism
>now?
I will repeat again. I would not have signed the Bush vs. Gore majority
opinion had I been on the US Supreme Court. I do not consider the Bush
vs. Gore ruling to be one that inspires confidence for me.
Anyhow, Casey vs. Pennsylvania was heard before essentially our current
Court, and basically upheld Roe vs. Wade.
This is also the same court that just a few years ago struck down
Nebraska's ban on partial-birth abortion in Stenberg vs. Carhart.
This is also the same Court that very recently ruled that anti-sodomy laws
are unconstitutional, and did so in a way that many Court-watchers took as
a signal that the Court was ready to strongly support homosexual marriages.
Suffice to say, I have very real worries that Ginsburg, Breyer, Stevens,
Souter, and O'Connor will find homosexual marriage right next to the right
for partial birth abortion when a mother's mental health is in danger in
the penumbra of the Constitution.
>> Sorry Michael, but if the Supreme Court rules against us, as Massachusetts
>> has learned, it is already too late.
>
>How is it too late in Massachusetts? There is still the possiblity of a
>state amendment. I dare say, that has a far better chance of passing than a
>federal amendment.
That amendment will only take effect after at least two years of homosexual
marriages have been handed out. That is what I mean by "too late."
>I don't think it's redundant. I never said it was. I think it's like using
>a bazooka to kill flies.
Why are you comparing the institution of homosexual marriages to flies?
Is this subject a small thing for you?
>Really, John, why does same sex marriage bother you so much? If homosexuals
>marry each other, that won't affect you or your life in the slightest.
I disagree. These court decisions are effectively redefining the
fundamental building block of *my* civilization, without any democratic input.
In other words, it is not only changing the building blocks of my
civilization, but it is also undermining my faith in our republican form of
governance.
> What
>about gay marriage is so disturbing to you that you can only think of
>forbidding it rather than having a "live and let live" attitude about it?
Au contraire, I very much have a "live and let live" attitude about this.
I have no problem with the Unitarian Universalist Church marrying
homosexual couples, and those couples living happily ever after.
I do have a problem when my government starts incentivizing those unions by
interposing them with traditional marriages as the basic buidling blocks of
my civilization. And if my civilization *is* going to be altered in a
fundamental way, then by golly I want to at least be able to participate in
the governing process of that decision.
FWIW, I would also support a Federal Marriage Amendment that reads:
"Neither the provisions of this Constitution, nor the provisions of any
State Constitution, having been in effect on or before 1/1/2004 shall be
construed as requiring any government to grant marriages or the benefits
thereof to any couple or group. Congress shall have the power to pass
appropriate legislation governing the interstate recognition of marriage
and other civil unions; and to implement the provisions of this Amendment"
It isn't pretty, but the text of the above Amendment would effectively take
this debate out of the hands of the activist judges, and place it in the
hands of the Legislatures, where this debate firmly belongs.
Nevertheless, I do also support the (soon-to-be-modified, IMHO) Musgrave
Amendment for the reasons previously stated as well.
>Don't give me that "cornerstone of society" and "radical redefinition" BS
>you have been dishing out, what really bothers you about it so much? This
>is asking for a personal opinion, not neccessarily something based in sound
>argument. If you want to discuss that off list so you won't get flamed
>on-list for your personal opinions, I will gladly discuss it off-list and
>keep everything you say off-list private. I just think there is more too
>this reaction of yours than simple disagreement with gay marriage if you
>want to make gay marriage banned in the whole USA and by means of the most
>powerful tool available.
I'm sorry to disappoint you on that, but my position is what it is.
JDG
_______________________________________________________
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world,
it is God's gift to humanity." - George W. Bush 1/29/03
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
