Wyoming Republicans approve anti-gay amendment

[chrisrobin]

They could call it "The Matthew Shepard Amendment."

 

[jackoroe]

No Constitutional amendment allowing marriage to be defined as to include same sex couples has passed anywhere in the US, ever.

The politics of the states inhabitants doesn't seem to play a role in the voting outcome. California has a 19 point democrat advantage in voting registration, yet prop 8 had prevailed by about 5%.

It's not going to change until a successful argument is made at SCOTUS. That's just a fact of life.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/114016/state-states-political-party-affiliation.aspx

 

[Kulindahr]

The only way that marriage should be defined in the U.S. is as a mutually agreed union between consenting adults. That's just restating freedom of association.

 

[hotatlboi]

No Constitutional amendment allowing marriage to be defined as to include same sex couples has passed anywhere in the US, ever.

This is the wrong wording.

As a conservative, you should know that constitutions are supposed to be things that limit governments' ability to restrict freedoms, not things wherein specific enumerations of all freedoms permitted have to be made.

No constitutional amendment should have to be passed that "allows" gay marriage. The only reason that would have to be passed is if a constitution was amended to specifically prohibit it, to repeal that amendment.

If everyone were just treated equally (as most constitutions already mandate), the issue would be settled.

It's not going to change until a successful argument is made at SCOTUS. That's just a fact of life.

Also wrong, several states have legalized it legislatively, and Maryland has a good chance of doing that this year.

But keep telling yourself that if it allows you to feel that the bigoted GOP is not the thing standing in the way.

 

[Kulindahr]

^
I think you're criticizing something he didn't say. I didn't see any defense of the GOP, just a statement of the only way to achieve this. On that level, wins in a number of states will be necessary, because SCOTUS is both conservative and conservative at the moment.

And I think it's going to have to be a three-pronged argument, from freedom of association, freedom of expression, and equal standing before the law.

 

[hotatlboi]

^
I think you're criticizing something he didn't say. I didn't see any defense of the GOP, just a statement of the only way to achieve this.

Virtually all of his posts like this contain some variation on the basic idea that the GOP is not as bad as they seem or are not really the ones holding up gay rights.

In this case, he's basically attempting to claim that since a constitutional amendment allowing gay marriage is not likely to pass in any state soon, then it doesn't really matter what people's political positions on it are (and by extension who in particular is opposed).

Unfortunately the failure of logic here is that a constitutional amendment allowing it is not the only way it can happen, and in many states the GOP is the main reason it is not already legal.

On that level, wins in a number of states will be necessary, because SCOTUS is both conservative and conservative at the moment.

I agree, I do not think the Supreme Court will make it mandatory uniformly when only 5 states have done so. It is therefore critical that the attitude of "oh nothing will happen until SCOTUS legalizes it" not be adhered to, because if more gains at the state level are not made, that may not happen anytime soon.

 

[Kulindahr]

I agree, I do not think the Supreme Court will make it mandatory uniformly when only 5 states have done so. It is therefore critical that the attitude of "oh nothing will happen until SCOTUS legalizes it" not be adhered to, because if more gains at the state level are not made, that may not happen anytime soon.

And in the only way they seem useful, the LCR should get busy challenging anti-gay laws in as many places as it looks like a good chance to win, including challenging the "separate but equal" theory of civil unions.

 

[scream4ever]

To add more to my doubts of it passing, back in 2009 the House tried to pass the same thing and it only got 25 votes in favor. I know the Democrats didn't make huge gains in Wyoming because it already is a very Republican state to begin with.

 

[jackoroe]

This is the wrong wording.

As a conservative, you should know that constitutions are supposed to be things that limit governments' ability to restrict freedoms, not things wherein specific enumerations of all freedoms permitted have to be made.

No constitutional amendment should have to be passed that "allows" gay marriage. The only reason that would have to be passed is if a constitution was amended to specifically prohibit it, to repeal that amendment.

If everyone were just treated equally (as most constitutions already mandate), the issue would be settled.


Also wrong, several states have legalized it legislatively, and Maryland has a good chance of doing that this year.

But keep telling yourself that if it allows you to feel that the bigoted GOP is not the thing standing in the way.

Because the US Constitution is silent on the issue of marriage, then the right to make laws regarding it, is left to the states. So, on it's face, state constitutional amendments regarding who gets to get married, is within what the framers intended. States voting to allow gay marriage by means of legislation, is also similarly fine.

However, over the years, because the Federal Government has decided to assign benefits to those who are married in the form of tax laws and other goodies, we have an argument in terms of equal protection which is addressed by the US Constitution. We also have the separate but equal argument to make in arguing against civil unions.

I'd remind you that both DOMA and DADT are part of Bill Clinton's legacy. He signed both. If we consider, fairly enough, that the GOP is bigoted for passing those. Then we should similarly consider Clinton a bigot for having signed them. What you do to one side of the equation, you must do to the other.

In any event, Kuli is spot on with his position. We have freedom to associate with whomever we wish. The government had no business involving itself in marriage from the get go.

 

[Kulindahr]

Jockboy, I didn't realize that slavery was what was meant by the equal protection or full faith and credit clauses. Is there a variant reading I don't know about?

 

[jackoroe]

I really don't equate the gay marriage issue with slavery. No one here was dragged unwillingly from their native land, shackled, thrown into the bowels of a filthy hellish ship and taken half way across the world to become the property of another human being. No one here has ever suffered the indignity of involuntary servitude, and thank God of it!

I don't think you intentionally meant any harm by your post, but you have to see that some might find the comparison odious to say the least. Particularly being black history month.

 

[hotatlboi]

I think what JB might be saying is that, if the founders had spoken on gay marriage, they would probably have been unanimously opposed, so if your only legal argument is just "going by what the founders intended" then that would see gay marriage not being allowed.

 

[Kulindahr]

Remember that slavery was in the Constitution only because there was little choice if the new country was to be a new country.

 

[laikaNYC]

-A civil unions bill in the state is expected to pass. The governor has indicated he is leaning towards signing it.

When did the Governor say this?

Found it. Good news! I'm going to send him a letter tomorrow

"I’m getting a stronger sense that civil unions will pass,"

said state Rep. Dan Zwonitzer, R-Cheyenne, a supporter of gay marriage

Lawmakers consider civil unions

 

[rareboy]

It is a rebuke, not a comparison, to remind you that following what our framers "intended" is not a sacred obligation until the end of time. For as you can plainly see, 18th century values have no place in our world.

I think this is spot on.

This false doctrine of 'what the framers intended' gets trotted out whenever old white men want to restrict rights of others or enlarge rights for themselves.

I think that a lot of times, if the framers lived in the post-industrial age world we inhabit, their frame of reference would be much different.

Imagine if they had got together every few weeks to discuss why the Magna Carta should be the governing doctrine of the new US constitution.

 

[jackoroe]

It is a rebuke, not a comparison, to remind you that following what our framers "intended" is not a sacred obligation until the end of time. For as you can plainly see, 18th century values have no place in our world.

Values have nothing to do with the issue. It's about what the Constitution actually says. The Constitution is not a "living document" as liberals believe. Slavery wasn't abolished because values changed. It was abolished by the XIII Amendment. The founders intent, as expressed in the document, are the law of the land until they are changed.

 

[rareboy]

The very concept that a Constitution can be amended makes it a living document.

 

[Kulindahr]

"What the Founders intended" is the only way to read the document without making it a game between what different people would like it to mean.

In matter of fact, with respect to slavery, we have what the Founders intended: an amendment to change the prior order of things.

The really sad part on this is that we have done things which were not authorized by the Constitution without making amendments. Most of those have been liberal innovations, and their force is to make the Constitution a dead document.