July 9, 2004
Is Banning Same Sex Marriage Critical to Our National Security?
Well, The Joint Intelligence Committee released their report evaluating the Intelligence community in regards to 9-11 and Iraq. There are some fairly uncomplimentary things in that report. Meanwhile the budget appropriations package for Homeland Security sits in the queue behind a constitutional amendment to ban the courts from hearing challenges to heterosexual marriage. I guess that the Bush administration and Republicans feel that banning same-sex marriage (or the issue even being looked at by the courts) is more important than protecting the United States from terrorist attacks.
I've been waiting for the opportunity to use this picture, and now is the perfect time.
Picture by Rogers. Copyright 2004 Pittsburgh Post- Gazette. From
The Oregonian, 3/5/04 B7.
The " Federal Marriage Amendment " (S. J. RES. 26, and H. J. RES. 56) is the same in both houses and reads as follows:
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage .`Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the Constitution of any State, nor State or Federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.'.
Note: A countering bill was initiated by Representative Frank of Massachusetts - H. R. 2677 State Regulation of Marriage Is Appropriate Act (Introduced in House). See that bill below.
The proposed amendment permanatizes the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA - copy of DOMA at the end of this article) and bars the courts from jurisdiction over challenges to DOMA. This approach is alarming to me, because it places a part of our Constitution that ties directly to the rights of citizens beyond challenge by the courts. The Constitution has never been amended to restrict rights from citizens, so this is new. It is also of concern that it is being offered as an amendment to the Constitution - not as a piece of legislation. That means, the amendment (if passed) would become a permanent part of our Constitution. A class of citizens would be excluded from certain rights into perpetuity. To state it another way, heterosexuals would become a specifically elevated class under the Constitution.
Regardless of how one feels about whether the protections and rights of civil marriage should be include same sex couples or not, it is a travesty to place such legislation before national security priorities. It is clear, that the purpose in doing so is to hold the Homeland Security appropriations package hostage to a religious agenda. I find it hard to believe that even those who feel strongly that same sex marriage should be banned, look positively on such a maneuver.
Countering bill by Rep. Frank (The purpose of this bill is to essentially block the amendment, and to make marriage a state rights decision, rather than a federal constitutional issue.)A BILL
To amend title 1, United States Code, to eliminate any Federal policy on the definition of marriage .
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `State Regulation of Marriage Is Appropriate Act'.
SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF FEDERAL POLICY ON THE DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE .
(a) IN GENERAL- Title 1, United States Code, is amended by striking section 7.
(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT - The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 1 of such title is amended by striking the item relating to section 7.
DOMA 104th CONGRESS 2D SESSIONPosted by rowan at July 9, 2004 12:39 PM | TrackBack | [eMail this article!] |H.R. 3396
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Mr. BARR of Georgia (for himself, Mr. LARGENT, Mr. SENSENBRENNER, Ms.
MYRICK, Mr. VOLKMER, Mr. SKELTON, Mr. BRYANT, and Mr. EMERSON) introduced the following bill, which was referred to the Committee on_____________A BILL
To define and protect the institution of marriage.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress assembled,SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the "Defense of Marriage Act".
SEC. 2. POWERS RESERVED TO THE STATES.
(a) IN GENERAL. -- Chapter 115 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding after section 1738B the following:
Section 1738C. Certain acts, records, and proceedings and the effect
thereof"No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such
relationship."(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT. -- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 115 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 1738B the following new item: "1738C. Certain acts, records, and proceedings and the effect thereof."
SEC. 3. DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE.
(a) IN GENERAL. -- Chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is amended
by adding at the end the following:"Section 7. Definition of 'marriage' and 'spouse'
"In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife."
(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT. -- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 6 the following new item:
"7. Definition of 'marriage' and 'spouse'."
Of all the things we need to even think about; marriage... same sex or not is one of the last, in fact it doesn't even make a list. My God, what is all the fuss about, where are the so-called family value people. I look forward to the day described by one of my favorite playwrights, Edward Albee, who thinks it is absolutely irrelatvant to identify ones sexual preference,(he by the way is gay and refuses to discuss his sexual preference, in that he feels it is nobody's business) we are all sentient beings, those that want an amendment perhaps a little less "sentient".
Even conservatives like Barry Goldwater had no problem with issues of sexual preference, most real conservatives or rather traditional conservatives that fought the ERA on the grounds of states rights and messing around with the constitution. I say let's concentrate on real problems and let love grow.
AMEN
Posted by: Bill Whitlatch at July 9, 2004 2:41 PMA diversion it seems to avoid the truth about his tenure in office. Fundamentalist Christians love this sort of thing. It will give Mr. Bush their vote.
Whether people believe in gay marriage or not, it sure does not belong in the constitution. That's like saying all of the American public ought to be Protestant or something. Imposing ideology on people is not what this nation was founded on. In fact, I believe it was just the opposite.
Here's to you King George!
I haven't actually made up my mind on the issue, but I'm going to take the opposite side to enhance "dialogue."
First, you are confused about what the amendment would do. It would not prevent states from enacting legislation allowing gay marriage or something substantially equivalent. Instead, it would merely prevent activist judges from interpreting the Constitution to "require" that a state allow gay marriage when its legislature does not so choose.
At the moment, the nation is overwhelmingly opposed to gay marriage. That does not mean that attitudes won't change. But the Amendment would prevent judges from radically restructuring such an important institution while the public stands helplessly on the sidelines in disagreement. The Amendment would be a victory for democracy, a stern warning to judges that if they are accountable, and that the people can step in to stop judicial activism in its tracks.
To state it another way, heterosexuals would become a specifically elevated class under the Constitution.On the contrary, it is homosexuals who are trying to become an elevated class. As one law professor puts it:
Indeed, the American people should have the opportunity to deliberate the economic and social costs of this radical social experiment. Astonishingly, in the media coverage of this issue, next to nothing has been said about what this new special preference would cost the rest of society in terms of taxes and insurance premiums.
The Canadian government, which is considering same-sex marriage legislation, has just realized that retroactive social-security survivor benefits alone would cost its taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars. There is a real problem of distributive justice here. How can one justify treating same-sex households like married couples when such benefits are denied to all the people in our society who are caring for elderly or disabled relatives whom they cannot claim as family members for tax or insurance purposes?
Shouldn't citizens have a chance to vote on whether they want to give homosexual unions, most of which are childless, the same benefits that society gives to married couples, most of whom have raised or are raising children? Raising children adds value to society in the form of labor and future tax revenue (unless you are raising a bum, which is all too common). I don't see what is wrong for giving an incentive for people to get married in the hope that they will eventually have kids (as they usually do). Morever, poverty and crime are closely linked to un-wed motherhood. Thus, there are sound policy grounds for trying to encourage dead-beat dads to get married and take care of their families.
Proponents of gay marriage want a special privilege: they want all the advantages of marriage without actually providing society anything in return. There is no reason to provide tax incentives to gay couples. There are reasons for giving them to heterosexual couples.
Okay, that should kick off the "dialogue."
Posted by: Meaty Fly at July 10, 2004 11:45 PMNot being a lawyer, I generally don't stretch too far in interpretting legislation. According to Amy Fagan at the Washington Times, Bill would end courts' purview on marriage law (7/07/04).
If the assumption is that heterosexual marriage is rewarded by the tax structure because heterosexuals provide children then we need to change the law. In 1998 18.4% of married women were childless - an increase of roughly 5% from 1978. Further, most of those are voluntarily childless (over 4 million of of the 5 plus million the statistic covers). (American Demographic 11/01).
Posted by: rowan at July 11, 2004 7:29 AMThe current administration is out on the streets skinning the rube public with the old card tricks: 'Pick and issue, any issue...now don't tell me what it is ( because we don't really give a "....")".
The use of the amendment process to enter into the Constitution any denial of basic civil rights to any group or segment of American society is a travesty that goes beyond the forgiveness of even the most liberal interpreters of the Laws that guarantee these citizens all the rights and privileges accorded to anyone, " in full measure...", who is fortunate enough to be born on this soil!
How will the young people of America view the Constitution and it's amendment process, when they reach voting age? Will this process become a way to turn our nation into the very system we fought so hard for release from over two hundred years ago? Will it become the new, 'American' way of legalizing Fascism?
God Bless America, indeed!
Posted by: Robin L. DesJardins at July 11, 2004 9:24 AMI applaud "Meaty Fly" for a reasonably structured debate, I don't agree the statements on a variety of issues, but he did present an argument without all sorts of homophobic nonsense.
The bottom line is there is very little chance this would ever get passed, right now according to all the information, including mainstream media, this issue is being brought up to use as a wedge, to somehow cast an eye on those that would date support such a strange relationship as same sex. I hate this cliche:" but I have lots of friends" who are other than hetrosexual, and they have children, very bright, very well adjusted children, again this really is much ado about nothing, and for the life of me I cannot understand what is it that gets people so upset. "Meaty Fly" argues a good case for states rights, I agree i.e death with dignity or smoking pot, all should be left up to states, but we have seen the conservative reaction with the death with diginity law, so we in Oregon had to vote several times to show we mean what we say nothwithstanding Mr. Hyde , Hatch et al.
Love is a wonderful thing, and there is a shortage of it globally, actually I don't even believe in marriage at all, but if two people want to jump in.....for all of the rights others have as a result.....let 'em leap.
Good Debate ! Live and let live !
I think we need to start by asking what marriage is and what it is for. I suspect that the purpose of marriage is to avoid situations in which women are left raising children alone. As I already pointed out, crime and poverty are closely linked to single-motherhood. Thus, there is a real reason for trying to encourage durable unions between men and women. The same reasons do not apply to same-sex couples whose behavior does not produce offspring.
The Amendment is not a denial of "basic civil rights" as Robin claims. It is simply an attempt to channel heterosexual impulses into a stable relationship so that the costs of single-motherhood don't fall on the broader society. At least that's how I see it.
Posted by: Meaty Fly at July 12, 2004 6:25 PMActually, marriage was originally for forming kinship networks. Children belonged (and in some cultures still belong) to the kinship group. In those societies there is no such thing as "single parenthood" unless for some reason all kin are dead. Marriage is also linked to issues of inheritance. It places the ownership of wife, and more importantly, children, under the authority of a male (or sometimes a male line. In some cultures if a husband/father dies, his family comes under the care and control of his brother or other relative.
Poverty is linked to single parenthood (yes it's more likely for males as well) because the economic needs of a family can not be met by one income for much of the population. This is particularly true for women who (on average) earn less than males of similar education.
If we were concerned about poverty, we wouldn't resolve it with marriage but with a living wage.
Posted by: rowan at July 12, 2004 8:34 PMIn Lakota, there is no word for father or mother, rather words for Uncle and Aunt - i.e. children are the responsbility for extended families
Amazing how Congress occasionally raises the minimum wage by .15 - .20 and touts it as a step forward
Posted by: goesh at July 13, 2004 5:58 AMRowan,
And what were those kinship networks for? They were not ends in themselves, but rather means through which children were nurtured and supported.
The issue of inheritance is also a part of the child-rearing issue: how to ensure that the product of your labor passes on to your children.
Nothing you've said contradicts my statement. Marriage has/had a lot of functions, but the primary benefit, at least in this culture, has been the stable environment it provides for offspring and the way it channels heterosexual drives, which can have adverse consequences (through single-motherhood), into a productive and stable result.
In any case, what matters is how marriage has functioned in this society. I'll fully grant that other social structures are possible. But this structure has worked, and I see nothing wrong with defending it. At the very least, this should be an issue for public debate and legislative action, not a decision for activist judges pushing their agendas in favor of the cause-of-the-week.
Actually, the kinship networks were for issues of alliance. This was true in europe with royalty as well.
It is a relatively recent phenomena in the US to have the "nuclear" family of wife,husband, child. Up until the 1950s, the majority children were in multi-generational households, or lived in close proximity to other kin. The the movement to the suburbs, demands of relocation for employment, and efforts to increase consumption, actually glorified the "nuclear" family.
If we are concerned about controlling the sexual energies of heterosexuals through marriage, wouldn't it make sense to apply that same rationale to gays and lesbians?
I believe that the basis of the rhetoric around "gay" marriage is the purposeful disregard of the distinction between the civil contract (which is controlled through governmental regulation) and the religious sanctions (applied through churches, temples, etc.). Ministers, priests, rabbi's ... regularly refuse to marry heterosexual couples, and that decision has nothing to do with whether they have gotten a marriage license or not. If one is married in a religious ceremony only then one is not legally married. These are two seperate issues which everyone seems to want to treat as the same.
The issue of civil marriage, falls under contract law. That's is why the anti- miscegenation was ruled unconstitutional. The ruling was that a legal contract that was honored by one state had to be honored in all states. It wasn't decided on the basis of the sanctity of preserving white only marriages. In fact, the decision had nothing to do with marriage - just the validity of legal contracts.
That points to the real issue here. If laws are passed that undermines the interstate validity of contracts, it impacts all such contracts because they are legal - civil documents.
Posted by: rowan at July 13, 2004 12:11 PMSex and reproduction have always been central to marriage. Concern with passing on the family line was generally a huge priority. The emphasis on chastity and cuckoldry betrayed an on-going fear of expending one’s time and energy raising the product of another man’s seed. There was even a tradition where the newlywed couple had to hang the bloody sheets from the window the day after the marriage as a right of passage. Concerns with reproduction and securing the transfer of wealth to successive generations permeate the institution and always have. Alliances, while also serving some peripheral power goals, were simply one part of the picture.
In any case, I am less concerned with what marriage accomplished thousands of years ago than with the function it has served in the history of our country. Many commentators have noted a remarkable correlation between skyrocketing crime rates and the breakdown of the traditional family structure. It is irrelevant that Indians have scores of mothers because of their extended family structure. We don’t have that. When the father is gone, all too often the mother is left raising the kids alone, putting a substantial burden on the larger community. I don’t see that as a good thing.
If we are concerned about controlling the sexual energies of heterosexuals through marriage, wouldn't it make sense to apply that same rationale to gays and lesbians?No, because the sexual energies of gays and lesbians don’t burden society with children on welfare. How many single teenaged gay fathers do you know? It is simply not a significant social problem.
I’m not religious, so I’m not concerned with the religious aspects of marriage. I support religion because I think it is good for the masses, far better than handouts. I think the basic message of the Church, that sex should happen within the confines of marriage, is actually a good message that helps a lot of people pick up the pieces of their screwed-up lives.
I have nothing against gays doing what they see fit, but I don’t see any compelling reasons to completely restructure the institution of marriage just to satisfy the demands of the latest “progressive” cause. There are good reasons for encouraging monogamous sexual relationships that don’t apply to gays.
I’m not sure I even follow the contractual portion of your argument. No one is saying gays can’t enter contracts and promise to look after each other in a quid pro quo arrangement. The law would/will enforce those contracts under normal contract law. But that doesn’t mean we need to provide tax incentives to encourage those contracts. Why should we? We provide incentives to purchase homes rather than rent. Are you screaming about discrimination against renters? I doubt it. There are countless examples of incentives built into the tax and legal systems. This is just one of those.
If our society allows gay couples to adopt and raise children, and one believes that the institution of marriage strengthens and supports the child and parent, then why not same-sex marriage? Should a parents' marriage only be praised if the child is their biological child? By Meaty Fly's argument that the primary purpose of marriage is the stable environment it provides for offspring, it follows that any couple with a child be granted the opportunity to marry.
Unless of course, the unspoken point here is that Meaty Fly takes issue with same-sex couples raising children. And that is a point entirely different from the marriage debate.
Posted by: Emily at July 13, 2004 11:45 PMReaders may be interested in this amazing five-part essay: http://www.livejournal.com/users/ksej/47690.html
Posted by: Emily at July 13, 2004 11:51 PMEmily, I guess this argument is pointless. The Act has not passed.
Posted by: Meaty Fly at July 14, 2004 7:04 PM