« Clinton and Kerry Have Got Religion | Main | Murray & Clinton Plan to Hold Up FDA Chief Confirmation »

April 07, 2005

Kansas Joins 17 States in Passing Marriage Amendment

From the AP

The ban reaffirms the state's long-standing policy of recognizing only marriages between one man and one woman. It also declares that only such unions are entitled to the "rights and incidents" of marriage, prohibiting the state from authorizing civil unions for gay couples.

With final, unofficial results from 104 of the state's 105 counties on Tuesday, 414,235, or 70 percent, voted "yes," and 178,167, or 29 percent voted "no."

This is what happens when activists try to get laws changed through the courts instead of through the people. If you ask me, it would have been a much better strategy to go for civil unions first, then after that’s been accepted for a while, go for marriage. But they had to go for the whole banana first because, you know, obviously marriage with whomever you want is a right. Not changing the very nature of marriage from the way it’s been from the beginning of human history is totally a human rights violation.

Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, agreed that the U.S. Supreme Court ultimately will determine the validity of state constitutional bans on same-sex marriage.

I’m not a legal scholar or anything, but does the U.S. Supreme Court seriously get to decide the validity of state constitutional bans on same-sex marriage? Wouldn’t the only issue be if something in the U.S. constitution contradicted the state amendment? Given some decisions over the past 30 years, I suppose that wouldn’t necessarily be a surprise. I’d be interested in hearing from any legal folk who might have an opinion the likelihood of such a thing succeeding.

Of course, again, activists need to consider what the effect such a thing would have on the American public. Do they seriously think that they can force a redefinition of one of humanity’s most sacred institutions on us and expect no backlash? If the U.S. Supreme Court forces gay marriage on the U.S., I’m sure there would be a lot more support for a federal gay marriage amendment.

Foreman predicted the amendment will spawn lawsuits as gays, lesbians and unmarried heterosexuals encounter problems.

Interesting that they’re trying to bring unmarried heterosexuals into the debate. I doubt very many of them really care. After all, if they wanted to get married, they could.

"Does this impact living wills?" he asked. "Powers of attorney? Custody agreements? The enforcement of custody agreements?"

Since Kansas already has laws against gay marriage and civil unions, I doubt that it really affects them at all.

Personally, I’m a Christian and I’m morally against gay marriage. But I’m also an American and I respect the desire of people to not only live with who they want, but share certain legal privileges with whomever they wish. That’s why I’m for civil unions. However, I don’t think they should be limited to gays and/or based on sex. If someone wants to set up a civil union with their sibling, child, parent, next-door neighbor, or whoever, go ahead. It will make inheritance and custody issues simpler for them. I do think, though, that people should be limited to one marriage or civil union, (sorry polygamists) or else we’re setting up the legal system and health care institutions for big problems.

Posted by illuminaria at April 7, 2005 11:48 AM

Comments

Even civil unions violate basic principles of limited government. Civil marriage is not a set of benefits; it is primarily a government intrusion upon one's property rights and autonomy.
Why, when you decide not to live with someone anymore, should the government have any say in the disposition of either of your private property? This is a private, at will arrangement between two people. The obvious point is that this government imposition of limitations and restrictions is justified by a compelling public interest in promoting responsible monogamy in situations with procreative potential, because of the needs of any resultant children. The CIVIL benefits granted to married couples are not that extensive, and they exist to compensate for the impositions made.

Civil marriage is nothing more than regulating baby factories, just like they regulate gun factories. A machine shop without a rifling bench is not subject to ATF regulation, because it lacks a critical element of gun production, and similarly, a relationship that lacks the ability to manufacture new people does not trigger any public interest in guaranteeing that it is monogamous. It's that simple. If two or more people wish to comingle assets or take responsibility for aspects of each other's lives, that is what simple contract law exists for. The difference is that they can create contractual situations that fit their own needs, and and there doesn't need to be an overarching govt. definition and framework constraining the conditions of their contract and requiring that domestic relations court be allowed to micromanage the dissolving of their arrangement. That type of IMPOSITION is only for those who want to set up a human manufacturing facility by getting together with a born member of the opposite sex.

Posted by: dweeb at April 7, 2005 01:15 PM