[Industrialblog,
July 22, 2004]
As some of you know ...
I blogged quite a big on the gay "marriage" issue. One reason I've stopped was: (1) fatique,and (2) it wasn't doing any good. I was equally displeased with the methods being employed.
Anyway, my readers here know that I'm a bit outspoken on the subject ... although I've tried to express with nuance and sophistication :), my argument boils down to "you got to be effing kidding me." No need to harp on that argument.
Another thing that happened as a result of this discussion is I've collected two frequent commenters who are pro-gay "marriage", and I believe, gay. Now, being thereadership whore good blog host that I am, I don't want to offend my guests on this blog because they are, after all, welcome here.
So anyway, one of them has prodded me with the gay marriage issue with this story.
[By the way I am on a serious deadline crunch and I really have to get back to work. I've already written three stories today and I have to write four more. So I have to make this brief.]
My initial reaction: 'Bout time. And this is one occasion where I like the method better than the cause. I've thought it long past time to rein in the judicial system, which has been out of control for about 40 years. The Commerce Clause was severely dilated and, after fertilization from a variety of leftist causes, given birth to a massively expanded federal government. [Yes, I am being a smartass when I strain metaphors like that.]
Anyway, I'd love to see Congress limit the federal judiciary's jurisdiction on most social issues. Most things that we can call "value judgments" -- that is, a tough call where there is likely to be persistent disagreement among people with differing values -- out to be settled in the legislature.
[Note: You need to differentiate legitimate discrimination issues from your value judgment claim -- good luck. Response: Not before deadline, I'm not. I have about another 20 seconds to put on this entry.]
Applying the idea of limiting jurisdiction to SS'M', I don't know. I know I never bought the state rights issue from the pro-gay "marriage" crowd. If you're married in one state, you're married in every state.
I also don't like side effects solutions very much. That is, if we're gonna resolve a problem, let's resolve a problem. We don't need to pretend we're doing something else. That's why I was against federal rules limiting what doctors can counsel their patients about on abortion. Hey, if we're gonna deal with abortion, let's deal with abortion. Let's not interfere with doctors or limit their practices and speech.
Anyway, that's longer than 20 seconds, and I gotta go, but my quick take. Jurisdiction limitation, good; is gay "marriage" a federal question -- I don't know.
Anyway, my readers here know that I'm a bit outspoken on the subject ... although I've tried to express with nuance and sophistication :), my argument boils down to "you got to be effing kidding me." No need to harp on that argument.
Another thing that happened as a result of this discussion is I've collected two frequent commenters who are pro-gay "marriage", and I believe, gay. Now, being the
So anyway, one of them has prodded me with the gay marriage issue with this story.
[By the way I am on a serious deadline crunch and I really have to get back to work. I've already written three stories today and I have to write four more. So I have to make this brief.]
My initial reaction: 'Bout time. And this is one occasion where I like the method better than the cause. I've thought it long past time to rein in the judicial system, which has been out of control for about 40 years. The Commerce Clause was severely dilated and, after fertilization from a variety of leftist causes, given birth to a massively expanded federal government. [Yes, I am being a smartass when I strain metaphors like that.]
Anyway, I'd love to see Congress limit the federal judiciary's jurisdiction on most social issues. Most things that we can call "value judgments" -- that is, a tough call where there is likely to be persistent disagreement among people with differing values -- out to be settled in the legislature.
[Note: You need to differentiate legitimate discrimination issues from your value judgment claim -- good luck. Response: Not before deadline, I'm not. I have about another 20 seconds to put on this entry.]
Applying the idea of limiting jurisdiction to SS'M', I don't know. I know I never bought the state rights issue from the pro-gay "marriage" crowd. If you're married in one state, you're married in every state.
I also don't like side effects solutions very much. That is, if we're gonna resolve a problem, let's resolve a problem. We don't need to pretend we're doing something else. That's why I was against federal rules limiting what doctors can counsel their patients about on abortion. Hey, if we're gonna deal with abortion, let's deal with abortion. Let's not interfere with doctors or limit their practices and speech.
Anyway, that's longer than 20 seconds, and I gotta go, but my quick take. Jurisdiction limitation, good; is gay "marriage" a federal question -- I don't know.
I wouldn't say I was so much "prodding" you as I was pointing out an article I thought you would find interesting - and it related to a couple of comments that we had traded a few days ago when you were raging about the FMA being defeated.
BTW - also not gay - "not that there's anything wrong with that" -
Yeah, I heard this story today, on a slightly more reliable outlet than Fox "News". I don't know the history or legal ramifications of this approach, but it sounds like an attempt to do an end-run around one of the branches of government. But, hey, when all else fails...
sorry for the mixup, mlaff. and thanks for the heads-up.
note to self: remember the saying about "assume".
I have always thought that your issue with gay marriage was rooted in a religious belief/position. The Bible doesn't exactly encourage homosexual behaviour. If you take away a religious basis, I think opposition to it is very difficult to justify. For myself, I've never felt that civilization was threatened by gay marriage or gays or homosexual relations.
While, I definitely think the GOP is using this as an election year issue, I would agree that this is the kind of thing that is better handled at a state level. I don't yet buy that it is a fact that just because Mass. labels some legal arrangement between adults as "marriage" that other the courts will automatically make all states do the same thing. What would seem to be a factor is what the state laws say. Clearly states shouldn't be force to accept another state's definition of marriage. There seems like lots of state "licensing" things that don't get you licenses in all states. Marriage certainly would seem to fit into this category.
I'm still curious to know if the House/Senate could really pass a law that restricts the ability of courts to rule on a subject. That smacks of "activist legislators" usurping the power of the courts.
SG