From: "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 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. Wow... *that* might be cause to be worried. Upholding Roe v Wade isn't too surprising, but overturning a ban on partial-birth abortions... I agree with you there, that descision is a bit far out. > 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. The anti-sodomy laws were wrong on so many different levels... I would rather not discuss it. As for "in a way that many Court-watchers took as a signal that the Court was ready to strongly support homosexual marriages." What do you base this on? > >> 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." The FMA will be "Too Late" as well. Six of one, a half dozen of the other. > >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? It's only a small issue compared to the means that you want to deal with it. You talk about your definition of marriage being a cornerstone of your society, but you fail to understand that the Constitution is absolutley the cornerstone of our nation's society. You say that homosexuals seek to radically redifine marriage, but it is you that is asking to radically redifine the Constitution of our nation by amending it. > >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. So every issue should be a matter of majority rule? Should the majority be able to impose their views on the minority or should we try to protect the minority from a possibly tyranical majority? > > 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. Then would you support removing the word "marriage" from the government, and change government to only have "civil unions", and allow anyone to form a civil union with anyone they wish, leaving the definition of "marriage" and who can marry who to the churches? > 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. I still don't see how this somehow "incentivizing" homosexual marriages. Can you explain that? > 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. That is a far more reasonable amendment, but would require re-wording, lest it accidentally invalidate all prior marriages. "shall be construed as requiring any government to grant marriages or the benefits thereof to any couple or group"... Last I checked, a man and a woman qualifies as a couple... I'm not entirely sure, but I think there are amendments pertaining to marriages on several state constitutions already. :-) Even if the wording were fixed, I wouldn't vote for it (unless it was a choice between that and the FMA), but I probably would not rally strongly against it. > Nevertheless, I do also support the (soon-to-be-modified, IMHO) Musgrave > Amendment for the reasons previously stated as well. You should never support anything if you feel it crosses a line. If you really think an alternately worded amendment like the one above is adequate, you should not support the more radically and absolutely worded FMA. Michael Harney [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
