Editorial: An idea to tame the gay-marriage debate

The point is, this is a deeply personal matter that is no one's business other than your own, which is why a poll question posed in a recent sacbee.com/live segment about gay marriage is so compelling and frankly, long overdue for discussion: "Should the state get out of the marriage business for straights and gays, and only offer civil unions for all?" In that limited sampling, participants said yes, by a 58 percent-to-42 percent margin, larger than the margin of victory for Proposition 8. The law professors participating in that live discussion pretty much said: Nice idea but politically untenable. We ought to test that. As a society whose governance includes a separation of church and state, we should question why the state enforces marital contracts when they're really religious concepts.

[DNF]

DOMA does violate the "principle" of full faith and credit.

But it is not unconstitutional. Why? Because under Article 4 Sec. 1: "...Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof."

It was crafted by Congress to give States the option of recognizing these Unions.

I do agree that there should be a better way; and I believe I have a solution that would satisfy all factions. A "revision" of the Federal DOMA.

1)"Marriage" shall be defined by States, Churches or individual couples as they see fit.

2) For Government purposes, to ensure equal access and benefits under State and Federal Laws, only "Civil Unions" will be recognized. A civil union is between two people and must confer all rights benefits and privileges formerly granted under the term "marriage".

3)States shall be barred from granting additional rights, privileges, or responsibilities to marriages that are denied to Civil Unions.

4)The U.S. Constitution, as well as State and Federal Law make discrimination based on religion illegal. We must assure people of faith that religious freedom is protected under the 1st Amendment.

Problem solved.

[DNF]

“A right delayed is a right denied.”
- Martin Luther King, Jr.

“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed it is the only thing that ever has.”
- Margaret Mead

In order to achieve full civil rights now, we avow:

1.Full civil rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals must be enacted now. Delay and excuses are no longer acceptable.

2.We will not leave any part of our community behind.

3.Separate is never equal.

4.Religious beliefs are not a basis upon which to affirm or deny civil rights.

5.The establishment and guardianship of full civil rights is a non-partisan issue.

6.Individual involvement and grassroots action are paramount to success and must be encouraged.

7.Success is measured by the civil rights we all achieve, not by words, access or money raised.

8.Those who seek our support are expected to commit to these principles.

http://www.thedallasprinciples.org/The_Dallas...

[Umninimuzi]

I think it would be a good idea to consider putting the question in that format on the 2010 ballot in California. Today Nevada is closer to the ideal scenario than California is for that very reason.

[Gay And Proud]

In France marriages have been separated from religious requirements. Couples who want to get married have to have a civil ceremony first -- if they want to have a religious ceremony as well it means nothing from a legal standpoint without the civil ceremony.

Separating the legal part of marriages from the religious celebrations of the event has been working quite well for other countries. There is no reason in the world why it won't work in the United States or any other country that chooses to go that route.

[nhjeff]

Two points:

1) The religious argument is a red herring. It's a very thin cover for blatant homophobia. The fact is, these people do not want the state recognizing and "encouraging" gay people.

2) The theoretical question whether the state should regulate marriage is one thing. On a personal level, however, how many would be willing to swap THEIR marriage license for a civil whatchamacallit?

[Ziggy on High]

I find the idea of government giving up marriage laws completely ridiculous. The institution of marriage predates christianity, and most modern religions. Marriage is NOT exclusively belonging to the religionists.

Marriage is a civil right for ALL consenting adults.

[Daniel P from Long Island]

DNF wrote:

DOMA does violate the "principle" of full faith and credit.
But it is not unconstitutional. Why? Because under Article 4 Sec. 1: "...Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof."
It was crafted by Congress to give States the option of recognizing these Unions.
I do agree that there should be a better way; and I believe I have a solution that would satisfy all factions. A "revision" of the Federal DOMA.
1)"Marriage" shall be defined by States, Churches or individual couples as they see fit.
2) For Government purposes, to ensure equal access and benefits under State and Federal Laws, only "Civil Unions" will be recognized. A civil union is between two people and must confer all rights benefits and privileges formerly granted under the term "marriage".
3)States shall be barred from granting additional rights, privileges, or responsibilities to marriages that are denied to Civil Unions.
4)The U.S. Constitution, as well as State and Federal Law make discrimination based on religion illegal. We must assure people of faith that religious freedom is protected under the 1st Amendment.
Problem solved.

I disagree. I think DOMA is CLEARLY unconstitutional. DOMA does NOT "prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof."

By your line of faulty reasoning, ant-miscegenation laws, which were ruled unconstitutional in Loving v. Virgina (1967), WERE constitutional.

Also, some states allow first-cousin marriage, while others (for no good reason) do not, but ALL states must recognize first-cousin marriages as legal under Article IV.

Your "civil unions" idea is ridiculous and totally unworkable.

It would require ALL 50 states PLUS the District Of Columbia, PLUS the 2 commonwealths (remember which two they are ???) plus all the other territories I didn't mention, to each rewrite their marriage laws. It's politically impossible.

Ain't gonna happen.

The easiest and BEST solution is to continue to work on a state by state basis, until a critical mass is achieved and THEN challenge DOMA on Article IV. grounds, NOT the current grounds that Ted Olson and David Boies are basing their suit on now.

I fear that the Olson/Boies challenge will fail and set our cause back 20 years just like Bowers v. Hardwicke did.

(Note to Obamaniac: When your Sotomayor bid fails, remember I'm still available.:))

[nhjeff]

Daniel P from Long Island wrote:

It would require ALL 50 states PLUS the District Of Columbia, PLUS the 2 commonwealths (remember which two they are ???) plus all the other territories I didn't mention, to each rewrite their marriage laws. It's politically impossible.
Ain't gonna happen.
The easiest and BEST solution is to continue to work on a state by state basis, until a critical mass is achieved and THEN challenge DOMA on Article IV. grounds, NOT the current grounds that Ted Olson and David Boies are basing their suit on now.

I'm not sure your "word problem" adds up to the right number of governments that need to approve civil unions, but I agree with your conclusion and your strategy.

And I've lived in each of the commonwealths for over 20 years before moving to New Hampshire. They are states as well as being commonwealths, so 50 states is as accurate as 48 states plus two commonwealths.

[Daniel P from Long Island]

nhjeff wrote:

<quoted text>
I'm not sure your "word problem" adds up to the right number of governments that need to approve civil unions, but I agree with your conclusion and your strategy.
And I've lived in each of the commonwealths for over 20 years before moving to New Hampshire. They are states as well as being commonwealths, so 50 states is as accurate as 48 states plus two commonwealths.

I am referring to the Commonwealth Of Puerto Rico and the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas, NOT any of the 50 states.

Obviously you do NOT know about the 2 commonwealths.

[nhjeff]

Daniel P from Long Island wrote:

<quoted text>
I am referring to the Commonwealth Of Puerto Rico and the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas, NOT any of the 50 states.
Obviously you do NOT know about the 2 commonwealths.

Obviously you do not know that Pennsylvania and Massachusetts are both commonwealths. But I did think the Puerto Rico and the Marianas were territories.

[Daniel P from Long Island]

They're commonwealths. And any state, such as Virginia, that calls itself a commonwealth, is a state, not a commonwealth like Puerto Rico or the Northern Marianas.

[DNF]

Daniel P from Long Island wrote:

<quoted text>
I disagree. I think DOMA is CLEARLY unconstitutional. DOMA does NOT "prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof."
By your line of faulty reasoning, ant-miscegenation laws, which were ruled unconstitutional in Loving v. Virgina (1967), WERE constitutional.
Also, some states allow first-cousin marriage, while others (for no good reason) do not, but ALL states must recognize first-cousin marriages as legal under Article IV.
Your "civil unions" idea is ridiculous and totally unworkable.
It would require ALL 50 states PLUS the District Of Columbia, PLUS the 2 commonwealths (remember which two they are ???) plus all the other territories I didn't mention, to each rewrite their marriage laws. It's politically impossible.
Ain't gonna happen.
The easiest and BEST solution is to continue to work on a state by state basis, until a critical mass is achieved and THEN challenge DOMA on Article IV. grounds, NOT the current grounds that Ted Olson and David Boies are basing their suit on now.
I fear that the Olson/Boies challenge will fail and set our cause back 20 years just like Bowers v. Hardwicke did.
(Note to Obamaniac: When your Sotomayor bid fails, remember I'm still available.:))

It's been pointed out to you time and again that until SCOTUS rules, laws stand, whether you believe they are "constitutional" or not.

And I refuse to accept the scare tactic of "I fear that the Olson/Boies challenge will fail and set our cause back 20 years just like Bowers v. Hardwicke did."

At least someone is doing something besides talking, postulating and pontificating. Why are you opposed to Olson/Boles but don't have the guts to say the same thing when the issue is DOMA?

I don't hear you or anyone telling military service members "you may set us back 20 years if you file a Federal Lawsuit". Go to the Truman Library link I provided and look how long desegregation or the Armed Forces took, even after and executive order was issued.

As for politically untenable, we won't know unless we try. Harvey Milk being elected was considered "politically untenable" at the time.

[DNF]

Daniel P from Long Island wrote:

They're commonwealths. And any state, such as Virginia, that calls itself a commonwealth, is a state, not a commonwealth like Puerto Rico or the Northern Marianas.

And this is important to civil rights how?

[Daniel P from Long Island]

DNF wrote:

<quoted text>It's been pointed out to you time and again that until SCOTUS rules, laws stand, whether you believe they are "constitutional" or not.
And I refuse to accept the scare tactic of "I fear that the Olson/Boies challenge will fail and set our cause back 20 years just like Bowers v. Hardwicke did."
At least someone is doing something besides talking, postulating and pontificating. Why are you opposed to Olson/Boles but don't have the guts to say the same thing when the issue is DOMA?
I don't hear you or anyone telling military service members "you may set us back 20 years if you file a Federal Lawsuit". Go to the Truman Library link I provided and look how long desegregation or the Armed Forces took, even after and executive order was issued.
As for politically untenable, we won't know unless we try. Harvey Milk being elected was considered "politically untenable" at the time.

I have NEVER said do nothing I have constantly said to proceed n a state by state basis until you get either New York or Cali on board. THEN bring a federal suit based on Article IV. grounds. I think their timing and and lawsuit grounds are wrong. I think I'm right. But it would be obviously better if I weren't.

[Verad]

nhjeff wrote:

Two points:
1) The religious argument is a red herring. It's a very thin cover for blatant homophobia. The fact is, these people do not want the state recognizing and "encouraging" gay people.
2) The theoretical question whether the state should regulate marriage is one thing. On a personal level, however, how many would be willing to swap THEIR marriage license for a civil whatchamacallit?

My husband and I would...in a heartbeat. Can't speak for other straights.

[Jerald]

DNF wrote:

... I believe I have a solution that would satisfy all factions. A "revision" of the Federal DOMA.
1)"Marriage" shall be defined by States, Churches or individual couples as they see fit.
2) For Government purposes, to ensure equal access and benefits under State and Federal Laws, only "Civil Unions" will be recognized. A civil union is between two people and must confer all rights benefits and privileges formerly granted under the term "marriage".
3)States shall be barred from granting additional rights, privileges, or responsibilities to marriages that are denied to Civil Unions.
4)The U.S. Constitution, as well as State and Federal Law make discrimination based on religion illegal. We must assure people of faith that religious freedom is protected under the 1st Amendment.
Problem solved.

I'd certainly go for it. I've used this argument, too, since it would provide all citizens as well as gay and lesbian citizens the equal protection of the laws.

But what becomes crystal clear is that the hardcore christian theists won't go for it, even if it does what they claim to want: to preserve marriage for religions to define.

The hardcore christian theists are less concerned about "protecting marriage" than they are preventing gay and lesbian people from obtaining the equal protections of the law and hence, in their view, "normalizing" homosexuality in law and culture.

The hardcore christian theists don't just want to maintain the rite of marriage as between one man and one woman, they want to retain the legal right as well as the cultural privilege they believe they are entitled to according to their understanding of their myths.

When the mormons and catholics line up behind this idea, maybe it would have a chance. But again, I doubt it.

But if I'm wrong, and influential christian groups were willing to go for it, I'd back it.

[nhjeff]

Jerald wrote:

The hardcore christian theists are less concerned about "protecting marriage" than they are preventing gay and lesbian people from obtaining the equal protections of the law and hence, in their view, "normalizing" homosexuality in law and culture.

This is absolutely true. And what baffles me about it is their inevitable follow-up: What if everyone decided to marry their same-sex buddy. Then no one would be procreating.

What is it that these people find so attractive and compelling about same-sex unions? They seem to think that everyone is just waiting for them to say "okay" so they can leave their opposite sex partners and marry someone of the same sex. It must be tough to live in such fragile relationships.

[Jerald]

nhjeff wrote:

<quoted text>...It must be tough to live in such fragile relationships.

Or with such a fragile hold on rational thought.

[Gryph]

I don't give a rip what its called, I just want to be able to protect my girl, I want for her to have what the straight couples have when they have the government sanction of legally being a couple.

[DNF]

Jerald wrote:

<quoted text>
I'd certainly go for it. I've used this argument, too, since it would provide all citizens as well as gay and lesbian citizens the equal protection of the laws.
But what becomes crystal clear is that the hardcore christian theists won't go for it, even if it does what they claim to want: to preserve marriage for religions to define.
The hardcore christian theists are less concerned about "protecting marriage" than they are preventing gay and lesbian people from obtaining the equal protections of the law and hence, in their view, "normalizing" homosexuality in law and culture.
The hardcore christian theists don't just want to maintain the rite of marriage as between one man and one woman, they want to retain the legal right as well as the cultural privilege they believe they are entitled to according to their understanding of their myths.
When the mormons and catholics line up behind this idea, maybe it would have a chance. But again, I doubt it.
But if I'm wrong, and influential christian groups were willing to go for it, I'd back it.

I know what you're saying. First they say all they want to do is protect "the sanctity of marriage". Then they mount campaigns to outlaw things that are already outlawed.(That's what happened with Amendment 2 in FL). Then it's blocking hate crimes laws, which the didn't even blink about when the Feds passed it in '92. Next it's bullying in schools.

They scream "gays want special rights" and use the phrase "activist judges" as a battle cry. Then in CA then run right back to the courts so they can be exempted from campaign finance laws.

In today's Miami Herald there was something that perfectly illustrates the point.

http://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/jim-morin/...