rcrocket wrote:The government makes decisions all the time as to which religions it will license to marry. The separation of church and state does not exist when it comes to marriage as an institution.
You still don't get it -- one's right to marry is so fundamental that it is protected by the U.S. Constitution (as it was under the CA state constitution, until Prop. 8).
The solution is to decouple religion from marriage, and get ministers out of the government marriage business. Or, government gets out of the marriage business altogether.
We agree. I've been saying this for years.
Examples of separate but equal existing: The federal Defense of Marriage Act, which has withstood constitutional challenge, defines for federal purposes marriage as only between a man and a woman.
Which I believe will
not withstand scrutiny by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Bill Clinton, who didn't have to sign it, signed it into law.
Pure political move -- Obama and Biden say they are against gay marriage, too, but I feel confident they say so for no purpose other than political expediency (and a lack of balls).
The government does not have an obligation to provide equality: (1) Undocumented immigrants are denied rights to many government services that citizens enjoy. That distinction is made obviously on the basis of national origin alone. (2) Felons often cannot vote. (3) The Supreme Court upheld a test oath for Mormons. Mormons couldn't vote. Nor could their church hold property. (4) Legal immigration status depends upon your marital status, your place of national orgin, and your wealth and education.
Red herrings, all. As you well know, such distinctions pass muster under the equal protection clause only if the gov't shows a compelling interest in the distinction. Some of your examples occurred over a hundred years ago, which I don't believe would survive today before a more enlightened U.S. Supreme Court. And, again, "immigration status" is not in the same ballpark as fundamental rights such as the right to marry. Good try, though.
Rollo: The right to marry is a basic consitutional right, and gay couples had that right in CA until Prop. 8 took it away.
Not under the federal constitution for gays; DOMA has withstood challenge.
I suspect you are talking about some federal district court somewhere (cites would be appreciated). I don't believe a federal court of appeals has discussed it, and the U.S. Supreme Court certainly hasn't. It's just a matter of time before it gets wiped out as unconstitutional (as has occurred in MA, CT and CA (until last week)).
As to California, there was no basic constitutional right to marry for gays until May 2008.
Nevertheless, gays had the constitutionally protected fundamental right to marry, which Prop. 8 ripped away.
In November 2008, the will of the people returned things to the status quo.
The status quo on November 3, 2008, was that gays had the fundamental and constitutionally protected right to marry, like heterosexuals. And "the will of the people" can be more properly characterized as "the will of the
homophobes."
I also observe in conclusion here that my views of things have certainly changed over all of this. I was asked to present to UCLA law students the pro-Prop 8 side of things, and I spoke to about 70 of them; my little talk was disrupted at times whereas the many anti-Prop 8 speakers were treated respectfully.
Blatant bigotry will cause that.
But I find it fascinating that full-grown adults in my area think they have open season on Mormons, and that they can picket our Sunday services ....
It should be expected. Again, blatant bigotry will bring that reaction.
... with vulgar insult and petty acts of vandalism.
That is completely wrong, and I condemn it.
Cursing my 7 year old. Slashing the tires of congregants.
Also way over the line, and I condemn such actions.
I read Democratic and liberal blogs discussing an organizational effort to send letters to the employers of big donors, in an effort to secure the termination of those employees (or in my case, partners). Why is that necessary? I think it malicious under any standard. That malicious certainly is evident here with oft-repeated charges of Mormon bigotry.
Also very wrong.
I am rethinking my party affiliation. Strange that this would have done it.
I thought you were libertarian?