Politics: Onward from New Hampshire

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I.e., Vermont.

What is the difference between a civil union and marriage, other than the name?

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
What is the difference between a civil union and marriage, other than the name?

I think, nothing. Hence the need to address "incidents of marriage."

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
On the whole, I think the precise meaning is irrelevant, both politically and legally. Politically because it's pretty clear what Bush, and any other proponent's position on gay marriage is.

It is not clear to me. What is the position? That states should be allowed to make their own decisions about whether unions are permitted (as Cheney said) or that unions should be absolutely prohibited nationwide?

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
In case there was any ambiguity, I meant someone who is out. E.g., Lindsey Graham does not count.

Well then I guess that rules out Bill Paxon, too.

Is it just me, or do others get that feeling about Bill Frist?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
It is not clear to me. What is the position? That states should be allowed to make their own decisions about whether unions are permitted (as Cheney said) or that unions should be absolutely prohibited nationwide?

The former. But I think Burger is right because (1) it won't pass and (2) the President has no part in it passing or not passing, other than as a cheerleader. The more interesting part is how Kerry and Edwards will vote on it, as they will have to take a position.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I am not up on this. VT didn't specifically pass a law permitting same-sex unions? It came about because a court interpreted some part of their constitution or some other state law not directly addressing the issue as requiring that such unions be recognized? I was making the argument that the amendment isn't intended to restrict the ability of a state legislature to pass a law permitting marriage-type unions.

Right. Basically teh same thing as Mass., except it allowed civil unions, whereas Mass. said that civil unions, even with the same rights, were different than marriage because they weren't called marriage. So the name there was of critical importance (but see teh dissent)

And, Ty, I don't see the first sentence barring what mass did. I see it as raising the principle of DOMA to constitutional level. Have I missed some S. Ct. ruling on the 11th amendment that suggests that "United States" means "United States and its constituent states"

As for irrelevance, I wasn't talking about what happens if it passes (which I think it won't), I was talking about the precise meaning of it. But really right now you're talking only about people in Vermont. Mass. hasn't started issuing licenses, and Cal.'s (well, SF's) licenses are void unless upheld, which they haven't been. It's only in vermont that gay couples have actually been allowed to enter into civil unions free from any doubts under state law.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
The former.

Then what is the point of the second sentence? On your reading, it is entirely superfluous.

eta: Burger, I see your point, but read the first sentence to be referring to the states, too. Particularly because marriage is generally a function of a state law. If that is the reason for the second sentence, it's very poor draftspersonship indeed.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
What is the position?

That gay marriage is so bad it's deserving of a constitutional amendment barring it. Do you expect to pin any politician down more precisely than that?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Then what is the point of the second sentence? On your reading, it is entirely superfluous.

Saying that a state may offer civil unions and saying that a state may offer civil unions only if passed by the state's legislature, without judicial compulsion, are two different things. If you're Bork, or a judicial consservative when that meant nott mean striking legislationdown under the takings clause or 11th amendment, there's an important difference.

[Flinty_McFlint]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
This transparent ploy to curry favor with Flinty would be more successful if he ever came over to this board.

Your wish is my command. Since I'm new here, lemme give you some background on my limited political views: I hate taxes but think corporations and the wealthy aren't pulling their fair share, I strongly support equal rights, am saddened by erosion between church and state, raised religious but don't practice or believe it, have liberal views on social issues, except the death penalty--I don't care as long as the bad guy isn't in the position to inflict harm, pro-choice, and I have guns. You could say that I'm conflicted. Okay, see you later.


Flinty

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Then what is the point of the second sentence? On your reading, it is entirely superfluous.

Because the first sentence just defines "marriage." The second sentence (1) opens the door for the states to pass civil union type legislation or constitutional amendments, so long as they are not called "marriage" and (2) says (or is intended to say) that unless their is specific legislation or amendment, a court cannot be required to say that general marriage statutes apply to couples that are not comprised of 1 man/1 woman.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
If someone has a schedule, I suspect that they're going to have to revisit it after yesterday. Log Cabin Republicans aren't feeling the love.

In case there was any ambiguity, I meant someone who is out. E.g., Lindsey Graham does not count.

Have you seen the Log Cabin Republican's press release? http://www.lcr.org/press/20040211.asp They're not happy. I wonder how much of a bloc they really are.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
It's a funny thing. I understand each of the individual words, even the hard ones. I think I understand each sentence taken individually. It's when we get to the paragraph level that I'm missing your point.

Fringe, I want to say Atticus is showing growth here. Can you make sure I use the term correctly.

Atticus, I do still call bullshit on the "understanding each sentence" though.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Saying that a state may offer civil unions and saying that a state may offer civil unions only if passed by the state's legislature, without judicial compulsion, are two different things. If you're Bork, or a judicial consservative when that meant nott mean striking legislationdown under the takings clause or 11th amendment, there's an important difference.

I guess I'm back with AG in thinking that the reference to "state law" in the second sentence forbids what you think state legislatures could do.

Originally posted by sgtclub
Because the first sentence just defines "marriage." The second sentence (1) opens the door for the states to pass civil union type legislation or constitutional amendments, so long as they are not called "marriage" and (2) says (or is intended to say) that unless their is specific legislation or amendment, a court cannot be required to say that general marriage statutes apply to couples that are not comprised of 1 man/1 woman.

Your (1) is redundant of the first sentence. If marriage is x, y can't be marriage. Your (2) is hard to square with the reference to "state law," as I said above. The amendment doesn't say "specific state constituton or law," it says "state law." And it's more than a little odd to say that a state constitution's guarantee of equal protection cannot require civil unions, but the state legislature can.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Have you seen the Log Cabin Republican's press release? http://www.lcr.org/press/20040211.asp They're not happy. I wonder how much of a bloc they really are.

They're not huge. They have a chapter here. But they're indicative, I think, of the kinds of groups that are going to be marshalling for this fight, and that's only going to help their public perception.