« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »
06/30/2008
Putting stronger resistance towards Wicker arguments
Speaking on the subject of a federal constitutional marriage amendment that he's championing, One News Now quotes Mississippi Senator Roger Wicker as saying:
"Frankly, the American people are so overwhelmingly in support of a constitutional amendment prohibiting same-sex marriage that I think it draws a clear distinction in an election year between two basic worldviews," ... "And I think it's an appropriate thing to introduce, if for no other reason than to have a national debate."
...
"This concept that constitutions are living, breathing documents which change as popular sentiment changes over time -- that's not my interpretation of the Constitution"
We reply:
Wait a second, buddy. Not so fast with that "the American people are so overwhelmingly in support" stat. Most recent polling data actually shows that either a scant majority of Americans are opposed to amending the constitution in this way, or there is a statistical dead heat on the subject. Even among those who are opposed to marriage equality, there is still a high level of discomfort among amending this nation's most precious governing document so that it specifically excludes gay people. Hell, even the GOP's presumptive nominee feels this way (for now and hopefully forever)! So the idea of "overwhelming support" is a flat-out lie!
As for the "appropriateness" of the measure's introduction? Well, it's pretty weak logic to suggest that we should put it out there just so we can talk about it. People's lives and loves are not guinea pigs that should be thrown on Congress' examination table. What, are we going to start throwing any faith-based, discriminatory out there just to see if it sticks? No, hopefully not. Because some things are JUST PLAIN WRONG. Some things are ideas that should be looked squarely in the eye and shot down with a reasoned voice. Not every issue is a two-sided debate wherein both sides hold equal merit.
Besides, we, spurred in part by the previous failed attempts by a Republican-controlled legislature to constitutionally ban gays, are already having a "national debate" on the subject of same-sex marriage. And guess what? THE SIDE OF EQUALITY IS WINNING! With every passing year, support is going up. With every eighteenth birthday, a more gay-friendly electorate is formed. The gaps? They are not becoming more and more insurmountable. In fact, we gay folks are starting to see the other side, which we could easily reach if just a few more progressive folks would take the stand for our equality!
And finally, let's talk about the "living, breathing" constitution straw man argument that Mr. Wicker presents. While we firmly believe that the time and context in which they were written should be considered when examining ALL historical texts, nobody is really asking that we reinterpret the federal constitution in order to accommodate marriage equality. Despite popular social conservative belief, there is no "man, woman marriage" stipulation in the U.S. Constitution. There are, however, several points and stipulations about fairness, equality, liberty, justice, and keeping faith separate from governance. What we on the pro-gay side are asking is for folks to get over their antiquated notions regarding which tax-paying couples are fit for full citizenship, and to instead grant us the rights we've ALWAYS deserved. The only ones trying to fundamentally alter the constitution are those who are trying to add a line or two which prohibits one particular class of people from engaging in one particular thing. The rest of us? We are just sick of having to waste our breath schooling elected representatives on how to fairly do their job!
Marriage bill exposes judicial activism [ONN]
Your thoughts
There are, however, several points and stipulations about fairness, equality, liberty, justice, and keeping faith separate from governance. What we on the pro-gay side are asking is for folks to get over their antiquated notions regarding which tax-paing couples are fit for full citizenship, and to instead grant us the rights to which we have ALWAYS deserved...
little changes JH... tax-paying (not paing)...
and I would just end with ...instead grant us our full and equal civil rights.
Doza
Posted by: LOrion | Jun 30, 2008 6:16:22 PM
The US Constitution is very difficult to amend due to the fact that 75% of the states must ratify an amendment before it is passed into law. They know that they can never pull that off - and they really don't want to lose the issue because it has been a very useful wedge in the past. But, they are now in the biggest battle of the recent past to maintain enough seats to ensure that the legislature can't override an executive veto. And they still may be of the opinion that this wedge issue can help them to keep the White House
They bring it up in election years, and do so only as a wedge issue. They can't win it, they don't even want to win it, they just want to distract the distractable idiots on their side away from the economy, the wars, the fact that they don't have health insurance, and the fact that their paychecks are being eroded away with each passing day.
I hope that they have used it as subterfuge so many times now that it doesn't work as well. And, the fact that the tide is turning in our direction may be some indication that they have.
Posted by: Dick Mills | Jun 30, 2008 11:55:31 PM
Ha! If the Constitution already stipulated man-woman marriage, there'd be no need for an amendment to satisfy the bigots.
Posted by: Robin Reardon | Jun 30, 2008 11:59:18 PM
Oh yea, Robin. I guess you're right. But still, the point stands -- we don;t need to alter what's written to grant marriage equality.
Posted by: G-A-Y | Jul 1, 2008 8:31:07 AM
A politician lying? Who'd a' thunk.
Posted by: Robguy | Jul 1, 2008 10:33:21 AM
Jeremy and Robin, technically you are right, but we shouldn't forget that in order for all women in all states to have the right to their constitutionally granted vote, it did take the ratification of the 19th amendment. That isn't to say that the constitution had to be modified to give women the right to vote, but it was necessary to force all of the states to acknowledge that women have the right to vote.
While women's voting rights and same-sex marriage rights are similar in that the US Constitution doesn't address either, our circumstances are a little different, and that leads to a very interesting fact about DOMA. An interesting thing about women's suffrage is that in some states, some women did have the right to vote prior to the 19th amendment. But generally only unmarried women - married women got screwed (no pun intended). The 19th amendment gave all women in all states the right to vote.
But, in the case of voting, the states control the process within their state boundaries and as pertains to all of the citizens of that state. So, a woman who had the right to vote in one state might lose that right if she moved to another state. This is where same-sex marriage is different - a person married in one state (generally) is equally as married in all states as they are in the state where the marriage was performed.
This is due to the full faith and credit clause in the US Constitution. DOMA is an attempt by congress to sidestep the full faith and credit clause to allow states at their discretion to choose not to acknowledge same-sex marriages. And, not only states, but the Federal government as well.
DOMA is a very clear violation of the constitution, because it selectively repeals part of the full faith and credit clause. The only way that can be done legally is by amending the constitution with 75% of the states ratifying the amendment. Overturning DOMA should give any US citizen's legally sanctioned same-sex marriages (in California, Massachusetts, England or anywhere else) the same standing (at the federal level) as any other legally sanctioned marriage.
But then there are still state issues to deal with either through a federal constitutional amendment (like women's suffrage) or by judicial decree (like anti-miscegenation laws).
Posted by: Dick Mills | Jul 1, 2008 1:17:32 PM
Talk to us
*Why are my comments not appearing? See the G-A-Y Comments Policy
