Image Hosted by

Monday, May 16, 2005

Time to Get Real

In case you haven't heard (I don't think Dan Rather will be covering it this Wednesday)

A Federal Judge has declared Nebraska's State Constitutional Marriage Amendment unconstitutional

On what grounds? That the "intent and purpose of the amendment is based on animus against [homosexuals]."

That's right, 70% of Nebraska's voters hate homosexuals, and is the only reason they voted it in. A judge said so, and they are not at all taken to making decisions based upon their own political ideas, then looking for actual legal reasons. "Hate" is apparently a legal reason - when the judge says you hate.

Attorney Brian Fahling of the Center for Law & Policy minces no words in his reaction to the Nebraska judge's words. "Not only is Judge Bataillon's assertion [that the amendment demonstrates animus toward homosexuals] demonstrably wrong, it is saturated with an all-too-familiar judicial contempt and antipathy for the moral norms of our culture," he says.

"We are no longer permitted to govern ourselves in the most fundamental areas of life. Instead, we are called names by un-elected judges who deconstruct our written constitution and our society with all the subtlety of a wrecking ball."

If you opposed a federal marriage amendment on the grounds that we shouldn't restrict the definition of marriage to its historical meaning, then we are so far apart that I can't change your mind. However, if you are one of those attempting to use "federalism" and "state's rights" to argue against it, it's time to give up that deceitful line of reasoning. No citizens of any state have a right to govern themselves without a federal judge's approval - that much is clear. If the 40 states with Defense of Marriage laws want to defend it, it will take the Federal Marriage Amendment to do it. The feedralist defense has been shattered.


  • Told ya state's rights were dead.

    By Blogger Eric Grumbles, at 5/16/2005 11:15:00 PM  

  • Very few people have every really supported states rights. People only support states rights when they are losing the national debate. That goes for both sides.

    Right now the popular opinion is against loving, committed couples. Sad.

    By Blogger Mark, at 5/18/2005 05:58:00 PM  

  • Actually, the debate isn't against loving committed couples. It's against homosexuals who wish their actions to be declared 'normal' through 'marriage'. As the country is 2-3% homosexual, and less than 20% of homosexuals are interested in marriage (according to "The Advocate"), and assuming that of the people who are interested in marriage (homo and hetero) 50% will fail, thus proving they are not committed, it looks like the country is in support of 99.5% of loving, committed couples - at worst.

    Please tell me, Mark, what prevents them from being loving and committed? Why do they need marriage to do these things, in this day and age? There are plenty of Unitarian and other "ministers" who will perform a cermony for them. Justification is what they seek.

    The "rights of married couples" can be achieved easily without marriage - except maybe the taxes thing...

    By Blogger Hammertime, at 5/18/2005 11:45:00 PM  

  • There is certainly nothing that keeps homosexual couples from being loving and committed, but the "rights of married couples" is a serious issue. Health benefits--Some companies recognize domestic partners as recipients of such benefits, but many do not. What if one partner is working while the other is in school or taking care of the child(ren) at home? The other partner has to pay for private health insurance. Hospital visitation--If you were in the hospital, your wife could visit you. However, hospitals have the right to deny visitation to same-sex partners. (Even public hospitals). Family leave--Married spouses are legally entitled to take unpaid leave to care for each other when ill. Same-sex partners do not have that right. Social Security--Among many other issues, married people receive SS benefits upon the death of a spouse. Same-sex partners do not. Taxes--Again, among other issues, married spouses do not have to pay an estate tax on property inherited from a deceased spouse. Same-sex partners do. So, in fact, that rights of married couples CANNOT be easily achieved without marriage.

    By Anonymous LiberalChristian, at 5/19/2005 10:40:00 AM  

  • LC,
    Thanks for the info. While I would dispute the visitation point and point out that companies have the right to choose who they will give benefits to and who they won't, I didn't consider SS or the leave (I have never heard of it).

    I'm all for abolishing SS. That problem isn't a contention for us. Also, teh marital leave thing (as a law, not as a corporate choice) should also be abolished.

    The taxes? Maybe it should be fixed. I mean, most of your gay men who ant to get married are financially stable, I would guess, and both work. It's not like htey benefit. Only families with stay-at-home moms really benefit from that, which I think is the design.

    Perhaps the government should get our of the marriage business altogether. Until they do so, I will fight the attempt to normalize homosexual marriage under the law.

    Thanks for the comment - I'm more educated because of it!

    By Blogger Hammertime, at 5/20/2005 12:04:00 AM  

  • You seem to be operating under some interesting stereotypes, particularly that most gay men who want to get married are financially stable (and that stay-at-home parents are moms). I certainly don't have statistics, but anecdotally, I know gay men and of gay men of all socioeconomic backgrounds who would like this right.

    I agree with you, however, that the government should be out of the marriage business, but until such time I will support the rights of all people to be married.

    By Anonymous LiberalChristian, at 5/20/2005 10:21:00 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home