Profile

unixronin: Galen the technomage, from Babylon 5: Crusade (Default)
Unixronin

December 2012

S M T W T F S
      1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
3031     

Most Popular Tags

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Tuesday, November 18th, 2008 03:51 pm

I keep thinking about this, then keep forgetting to post it.

Almost all of the arguments presented for allowing gay marriage, and against bans on same, focus on it from the angle of discrimination and equal protection under the law.  The next thing that happens is you have a bunch of people mincing weasel-words and arguing that it isn't really discrimination, etc, etc, etc, ad nauseam.

It seems to me this argument misses a key point.  Barring those who just want to argue about the terminology, the people seriously objecting to allowing gay couples to marry, virtually without exception, do so on religious grounds, and more to the point, specifically on capital-C Christian religious grounds.  They say it's an abomination in the sight of their god, or some such verbiage.

So, if the law allows a religion to define what marriage is, and the religious definition of marriage allows hetero couples to marry, because that's what the religion in question says they should do, but bars gay couples from marrying because the religion says that's wrong, then the law is being subjugated to that specific religion.  Any legal ban on gay marriage dictated by some religion's principles thus becomes a law respecting an establishment of that religion.  Bam, direct Establishment Clause violation, clearly unconstitutional, game over.  Open-and-shut case.

... Or am I missing something?

Yes, I know that technically the First Amendment constrains only Congress from passing a law "respecting an extablishment of religion, or prohibiting the free expression thereof".  And many States feel they don't have to be bound by the Constitution when they don't feel like it — like California, for example, which "does not consider the Second Amendment to be incorporated into the California State Constitution."  I have never had the slightest respect for this argument.  It amounts to saying, "Yes, we agreed to abide by the Constitution when we joined the Union, but we had our fingers crossed."  You want to be a US state?  You obey and respect the Constitution.  ALL of it.  Period.  You want to pick and choose which parts of it apply to you?  Maybe you think your state should allow slavery, or deny women the vote?  Go the hell away and form your own nation.

Tags:
Wednesday, November 19th, 2008 12:04 am (UTC)
You know, I don't think there's a single state of the Union that Canada couldn't conquer if it were a sovereign nation...
Wednesday, November 19th, 2008 01:19 am (UTC)
I dunno about that. They grow'em pretty big and tough in Texas. :)
Wednesday, November 19th, 2008 01:20 pm (UTC)
And we have a HUGE military presence here in Virginia. Hello, Langley Air Force Base?
Wednesday, November 19th, 2008 01:28 pm (UTC)
Not to mention Norfolk and Virginia Beach....
Wednesday, November 19th, 2008 01:48 pm (UTC)
And Fort Eustis Army Transportation Center, Camp Peary, Yorktown Naval Weapons Station, Fort Lee, etc., etc., etc. Yep, I'm pretty sure Virginia could defend itself. :)
Wednesday, November 19th, 2008 06:26 am (UTC)
Not in the last forty years. Now it's all "Canadian Forces (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Forces)". Apparently there are about 62,000 of them, plus 25,000 reserves.

"The Canadian Forces was formed on February 1, 1968, when the Government of Canada merged the Royal Canadian Navy, Canadian Army, and the Royal Canadian Air Force into a unified structure."
Wednesday, November 19th, 2008 03:38 am (UTC)
North Dakota used to hold the third-largest nuclear arsenal in the world . . .