Really disappointed in the Church's latest political adventure

[SeattleUte]

I can live with a Christian church taking a stand in opposition to same sex marriage or certainly refusing to marry homosexuals. The Bible, after all, condemns it, and people are entitled to take the Bible at face value and suffer the consequences.

But supporting a Constitutional Amendment banning states from recognizing civil same sex marriages is altogether different. It is an abomination. If nothing else, it makes me lose respect for the Church as a thoughtful, politically sensitive, pragmatic, intelligent and rational instition.

At the outset, I note that the Church itself has opposed amendments to the Constitution such as the Equal Rights Amendment on the sensible ground that Constititional amendments ought, as a bare matter of principle, to be rare events, and frugal in terms of avoiding any excessive intrusion into the rights of individual states to establish laws and rules governing the private arrangements of its citizens. I guess sensitivity to states' rights only goes as far as it coincides with the Church's social agenda.

Moreover, I believe this would constitute the only instance in which the Constitution is amended to limit rather than protect individual liberties. Is there another example of this? Each of the Bill of Rights has as its purpose and function protecting certain individual liberties against a tyranny of the majority.

Further, the proposed amendment gives rise to the twin evils of abridging both indivual liberty AND the will of local majorities. During the past 50 years the fault line separating "conservative" and "liberal" judges has been the basic issue of how liberally to construe the Bill of Rights such that the will of local majorities are thwarted in the interest of protecting individual liberties such as free speech (a classic example: application of the First Amendment to limit efforts by local governments to limit dissemination of pornographic materials in their communities; these cases are generating the bulk of cutting edge First Amendment law these days).

The proposed Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage perversely abridges the prospect of an individual liberty even if a local majority whishes to grant it. It gives, say, Alabama and Utah an excessive hand in local government affairs in, say, Seattle, New York, or San Francisco. No thanks.

Finally, probably for the above reasons the Amendment is a non-starter, and widely regarded by educated, thoughtful people as political gimmicry. The Church has gotten into the mud with the pigs. Does it get how bad it looks doing so? It should take a principled stand against gay marriage and get out of the business of supporting constitution amendments that expand the reach of federal power to control the lives of individuals AND local majorities.

[livecoug]

wow, can we beat this horse to death any more?

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by livecoug

wow, can we beat this horse to death any more?

Don't think my specific take on the issue--which is the most devastating-- has been covered.

[The_Tick]

SU,

Like when the voters in California voted to make SSM illegal in this state? And it was voted to be illegal and against the law by a wide margin.

And then the mayor of SF throws "law" to the wind.

I am not advocating a chagne to the Consitution, but what are we to do in the situation where someone decides to go against what the populace has voted for?

[fusnik11]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Don't think my specific take on the issue--which is the most devastating-- has been covered.

What's that?

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by The_Tick

SU,

Like when the voters in California voted to make SSM illegal in this state? And it was voted to be illegal and against the law by a wide margin.

And then the mayor of SF throws "law" to the wind.

I am not advocating a chagne to the Consitution, but what are we to do in the situation where someone decides to go against what the populace has voted for?

Go to court. It's a slam dunk. There's a provision in every state constitution that tracks the federal supremacy clause. Each unit of government must not pass laws that conflict with higher orders of laws. The hierarchy is generally as follows: 1) Federal constitution; 2) federal statutes including regulations implementing them (presumably these pass federal constitutional muster); 3) state constitutions; 4) state statutes; 5) local ordinances. Federal and state cases issued by appellate courts interpret and try to harmonize this hierarchy of laws insofar as is possible; they invalidate the subordinate ones to the extent they conflict. The reality that such a hierarchy as a practical matter must exist is the reason why many people believe federal law (the Constitution or federal statutes) should be generated and applied with restraint.

[The_Tick]

I am not dumb, but I don't speak legal ease.....

Here is my question....

Voters in Calfornia say No to gay Marraige.

Mayor of SF says FU to the people of California.


He broke the law correct?

But there appeared to be some loophole.

How is there a loophole, and how can the voter of California close the loophole?

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by fusnik11

What's that?

If you don't find my critique is persuasive why don't you explain how? You have time to post other stuff.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by The_Tick

I am not dumb, but I don't speak legal ease.....

Here is my question....

Voters in Calfornia say No to gay Marraige.

Mayor of SF says FU to the people of California.


He broke the law correct?

But there appeared to be some loophole.

How is there a loophole, and how can the voter of California close the loophole?

If the majority of voters in California really don't want gay marriage it isn't hard to amend the statute to close the loop hole. I guess it depends on whether your predicate is correct.

[The_Tick]

So I think I am starting to understand.

If we ammend the California state statute, then illegal means illegal right?


Another hypothetical...

California Gay couple goes to Oregon where it is allowed. Gets married there and then returns home. It still wouldn't be recognized in California because it is illegal here correct?

Thanks the info.