Thursday, February 03, 2005


Look, I don't hate W. But it's ridiculous to create a constitutional amendment against gay marriage. Said King George in the State of the Union Address, "For the good of families, children, and society, I support a constitutional amendment to protect the institution of marriage."

I thought republicans believed in state's rights... Why can't they allow states to decide how they would like to handle the situation?

For the good of our society, Mr. President, please drop the moralistic nonsense and focus your attention on things that matter... like Iraq, al Qaida and our economy.


Blogger mindful said...

Amen to that. With Massachussetts having legalized gay marriage, and many other states having explicitly rejected it by constitutional amendment, this is a great example of how federalism should work. We will be able to test the viability of the idea in these 50 microcosms, without first explicitly rejecting or sanctioning it on the federal level. Ultimately, it's all about information, the basis of good decision making.

12:27 PM  
Blogger thc said...

Vavoom and Mindful: Gay marriage is one area where there has to be a federal position established one way or the other. You cannot have a gay couple married in one state and later move to a state that doesn't recognize their union. It simply won't work.

7:48 PM  
Blogger mindful said...

You're right that a gay couple's marriage may not be recognized in another state if they move there. But this only denies the couple a right they would never have had in the first place. Why not let them have the rights they can in the states that will allow it?

This situation has already happened in the US. During the civil rights movement, there were many states that allowed interracial marriage and many that did not. Society did not collapse. The result was merely that an interracial couple could not move to Georgia and expect to have the legal incidents of their marriage enforced. Similarly, if a gay couple cannot expect to have their marriage recognized in Missouri, they will simply not move to Missouri. It is Missouri's choice whether or not that is the desired result. Let the states choose!

11:14 PM  
Blogger thc said...

I wish it were that simple, but federal laws regarding taxes, the transfer of property, government benefits, inheritances, etc. will necessitate uniformity.

8:29 PM  
Blogger mindful said...

You make a good point thc. I would guess that federal and state responsibilities with regards to marriage are quite separate. Why would a couple's federal income tax return matter to a state? Granted, I'm no lawyer. Maybe I'm looking at this the wrong way. But I still don't see how this is different from the fractured situation of 50 years ago.

12:31 AM  
Blogger thc said...

Mindful: Notice I said taxes, not income tax. I was referring to gift taxes, estate taxes and the like. I have an advantage, I deal with this stuff in my work. Your comparison to inter-racial marriages in the '50s and '60s is quite valid. The difference is that in the last 50 years all matters financial and legal have become tons more complex.

7:37 PM  
Blogger tomw said...

Who gives a sh.. about what someone else does? How does a gay couple getting "married" affect my marriage or yours? We hear all the time about promiscuity among the gay population being a problem. Maybe giving rights that the rest of us enjoy might change that.

10:30 PM  
Blogger Vavoom said...

You said it tomw! Will you marry me?

3:13 AM  
Blogger mindful said...

For the record, I agree with tomw that gay couples should be allowed to marry. But, independently of the morality of the situation, it is valid to question whether marriage should be regulated by states or on the national level.

thc: My reference to income tax was meant as an example, not an exhaustive list, of the areas, financial and otherwise, affected by marriage. For all of these, though, marriage is ultimately a distinction of paperwork. It seems, then, that federal and state governments should be able to make their own independent determinations of marriage status and thus have their own separate definitions of marriage. They already have varying definitions of citizenship/residency, for example. Furthermore, marriage regulations vary from state to state independently of the gay marriage dispute. For instance, the age of consent to marry with parental consent varies from 12 (for females in Kansas) to 18 (males in Ohio). Why do the complexities that would arise under a conflicted scenario with respect to gay marriage outweigh the complexities that arise under the many other currently existing conflicts between marriage laws in different states? And why should any of these complexities outweigh the significant increase in state and personal freedom that would result from the absence of restrictive federal legislation?

6:55 PM  
Blogger thc said...

Mindful: Please note that I never stated a personal position on gay marriage. I merely stated that there needs to be uniformity federally.

12:13 AM  
Blogger mindful said...

thc: I know. :) I was just responding to tomw and clarifying my own views on the subject. I did not mean to imply either that you are for gay marriage or against it.

12:16 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home