Catchy blog titles are fun
Published on October 14, 2004 By d3adz0mbie In Politics
I posted this as a reply to blogic in my "Vice President Cheneys daughter is a lesbian" blog entry. I feel there is a little confusion over the marriage amendment that needs to be cleared up:

"Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman."

This is a perfect example of why lawyers will be the first to to be shot (and that includes Congress) when the revolution comes. I see how this could be read that NOBODY will ever have the same privileges as a married couple. The truth is that if a Civil Union for any couple was enacted into law, it would acquire its own set of priviledges and legal incidents specific to its legal status. These priviledges and legal incidents could be equal or identical to those conferred upon the marriage status, but will never acquire those rights as married.

Maybe this analogy will help: Under law, a man cannot legally be a woman and a woman cannot be a man. While we strive for equality for both sexes, the truth is the two are legally seperate definitions. A man cannot have rights as a woman, and a woman cannot have rights AS A MAN. But they can both have the same rights.

Sorry if Im drawing this out... A civil union could confer the legal right upon two men to be recognised as inheritors of property under the laws that govern civil unions. They could not acquire this same right under the laws that govern marriage. Vise versa, a man and a woman married would become inheritors of one anothers property through the laws that govern marriage, not the laws that govern civil union.

Are we all confused yet?

The bottom line is that this does not EXCLUDE, but does not confer or address other similar potential legal definitions of relationships. Instead of fighting over this, the fight should be for the creation of civil unions, seperate but equal to marriage (but legally governing within its own rights). Now excuse me while I go find a gun, Ive got some lawyers to talk to...
Comments
on Oct 14, 2004
Actually, what it sates is that people who are joined in civil unions do not have the inherent right to the same privileges of married couples, and it also states (somewhat ambiguously) that (someone or something) can not be forced to give these rights to them. This could be interpreted to mean that the states can not be forced to give people in civil unions the same rights, or it could be interpreted as saying the president has the right to decide if they can or not. This law is very unspecific, and is intentionally trying to block the power of federal judges and the states in favor of the power of the Bush family.
on Oct 14, 2004
Ah a link to the Bard might have been in order, zombie.
Remember the rule of law means something only in a society based on laws. (Maybe a few would help though.)
on Oct 14, 2004
Sandy2: Hi again! Always good to see your replies. Please post where this amendment states that "people who are joined in civil unions do not have the inherent right to the same privileges of married couples, and it also states (somewhat ambiguously) that (someone or something) can not be forced to give these rights to them". Please, because I dont see that. Bush has stated repeatedly that civil unions is a State issue, which I would infer means that he thinks this is a State issue, unless your of the opinion hes just a blatant liar...
on Oct 14, 2004
I believe you are incorrect about the wording of the amendment. The wording before the Senate is:

"`Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.'.

The link: Link

My question is that if inherited property is part of marriage legal rights and a state decides to give inherited property to civil unions of same sex couples can the state do that? Or is that prohibited because inherited property is a "legal incident" of marriage?

IG



on Oct 14, 2004
Fixed, should have known not to pull it off the ACLU website. Grrrrrr...
on Oct 14, 2004
Oh and for Geezer:

Henry VI, part 2, Act 4, Scene 2:

CADE.: I thank you, good people;—there shall be no money; all shall
eat and drink on my score, and I will apparel them all in one
livery, that they may agree like brothers and worship me their 65
lord.


DICK.: The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.


CADE.: Nay, that I mean to do. Is not this a lamentable thing, that
of the skin of an innocent lamb should be made parchment, that
parchment, being scribbl'd o'er, should undo a man? Some say the 70
bee stings; but I say 't is the bee's wax, for I did but seal
once to a thing, and I was never mine own man since.—How now!
who's there?

From: Link

IG
on Oct 14, 2004
intentionally trying to block the power of federal judges and the states in favor of the power of the Bush family.


Huh? What? You gotta be kidding me - the proposed amendment would make Bush King for Life? Guess you're glad he has only daughters.

Sandy, your arguments would be so much more persuasive if you weren't so blatant in your visceral and irrational hatred for the man.

Cheers,
Daiwa
on Oct 14, 2004
Sandy, your arguments would be so much more persuasive if you weren't so blatant in your visceral and irrational hatred for the man.


That part I wasn't being serious about. Its called being facistious. The point is that the ammendment as was outlined was not the actual ammendment, and therefore my comment is void. Based on the legal interpretation of the original post, the ammendment could be taken to mean that the president has the final say in gay partnerships. The Bush family was a play on the posibility of Kerry loosing and another Bush taking office in 4, 8 or 12 years, including Jeb or Bush's nephew.
on Oct 14, 2004
And I wasn't joking about blocking the power of what he feels are "activist" judges.
on Oct 14, 2004
Is homosexuality a sin? It was up until lately a crime. It was on the books as a felony almost everywhere. It was a capitol offence back a little bit further. Now, the laws are going the other way. If you express an opinion that puts homosexual sex as a perverted practice you will be breaking the law in some countries. How far will the those so-called enlightened lawmakers go? Push and shove. Push and shove. President Bush has made it clear(no beating around ...Bush) that he is a Christian, and that his God is the God of the Bible. The Bible is clear as to the attitude a Christian is to have towards homosexuality, that is that it is a polluter of the desired relationship between God and man, and consequently between man and man. Therefore, all the godless lawmakers and the enemies of God can make all the 'laws' they want as they spend their days on earth, in opposition to the Godly and surrendered to God. It is for us to choose between God and man. If you are a Christian, you are to be "salt and light' in this tasteless, decaying, and dark world. In other words...vote Bush/Cheny '04. Amen?