Jim Stillman
Nevar
How the sincerely devout become a tool to be used for cynical purposes.
December 27th 2007 12:02
I have written in the past about how sincere devout people, conservative Christians for the most part and predominately supporters of Republican candidates, have been and are being cynically used for partisan purposes. An example of this manipulation can be found in the alleged “War on Christmas” discovered and promoted by commentators on Fox News.
The latest manifestation of this practice is in the proposal to amend the Florida Constitution to include this provision:
“Inasmuch as marriage is the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife, no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized.”
The battle against same-sex or civil unions has been resolved, even if those opposed will not admit it. It is last year’s cause. Moreover, there are very real secular issues to be addressed by the political system that are being subjugated to the emotional concerns about same-sex marriage, notably, a crumbling infrastructure, the unavailability of low cost medical insurance and care, the balance between safeguarding civil liberties and the dangers of terrorism.
Even if this were not the case, however, the proposed Amendment is unnecessary in the light of both the Federal Defense of Marriage Act, thus far untested in Court but likely unconstitutional, and Florida Statutes, § 741.212:
First a look at the Federal Defense of Marriage Act
The Act, signed by President Clinton in 1996, provides, in a rather typically cumbersome fashion,
The Supreme Court has, thus far, not tested the constitutionality of this law. I believe it would fail that test. The Constitution requires each state grant “full faith and credit” to the public acts of another and, in the past, marriage has been treated as such a status to be recognized. But even if this were not the case, the state of Florida seems to be protected!
The Florida statutes on the refusal to recognize “non-traditional” marriage are clear.
The operative statute is cited above. There is simply no need for a Constitutional amendment.
Except there is a purpose!
Florida is well-known for being the only state that absolutely forbids the adoption by homosexuals. Really Long Link
The “Marriage Protection Act” will permanently enshrine Florida’s anti-gay bigotry in the state’s Constitution and remove rights of other unmarried couples. It is not necessary. So why is an organization known as “Florida 4 Marriage” spending so much time, effort and money?
As of today, the Amendment supporters have obtained more than the 611,009 signatures required. According to their site, they are still seeking signatures and money. Again, the question must be raided: why are thousands of dollars being spent to further a cause that is already won?
The organizer and chairman of Florida 4 Marriage is a former political director of the state Republican Party. His hope is that the ballot initiative will encourage “value voters” to shop up at the polls and vote Republican. It is no surprise that Republican activists are the primary source of funds; a total of $ 557,699 has been collected thus far.
The entire enterprise is to get social conservatives “energized” so G.O.P. candidates will be elected. Playing on bigotry against homosexuals is cynical and abusive. It is, perhaps more importantly, a manipulation of good people of faith.
The fight against civil unions has already been fought; the battle is over. The right to civil unions or same-sex marriage has been established.
The term “marriage” is a charged one. What I refer to are formal, legally recognized, unions between individuals of the same sex. From these unions flow legal rights, including the right of intestate inheritance, the right to participate in advance care and medical decisions – in short two people living as a family.
In a subsequent post, I suggest that, regardless of the acts of Florida now, the issue has been joined and there will come a time when same-sex couples will be able to enter into marriage or quasi-marital relationships; the idea of forbidding these will be as foreign as the once common laws preventing mixed race marriage.
If one were truly troubled about the weakened and seemingly fragile nature of marriage among heterosexuall couples, then the concern would be focused on society’s fixation with the role models presented to our children, the number of out-of-wedlock children being born, the transient nature of marriages by recording artists and other performers and so forth The attack on marriage as an institution is from those who cohabit and have children without marriage not from those who want marriage and commitment and cannot have it.
In the meantime, the organizers of the far right will continue to use fear as an election technique.
The latest manifestation of this practice is in the proposal to amend the Florida Constitution to include this provision:
“Inasmuch as marriage is the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife, no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized.”
Even if this were not the case, however, the proposed Amendment is unnecessary in the light of both the Federal Defense of Marriage Act, thus far untested in Court but likely unconstitutional, and Florida Statutes, § 741.212:
“(1) marriages between persons of the same sex entered into in any jurisdiction, whether within or outside the State of Florida, the United States, or any other jurisdiction, either domestic or foreign, or any other place or location, or relationships between persons of the same sex which are treated as marriages in any jurisdiction, whether within or outside the State of Florida, the United States, or any other jurisdiction, either domestic or foreign, or any other place or location, are not recognized for any purpose in this state.
“(2) The state, its agencies, and its political subdivisions may not give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any state, territory, possession, or tribe of the United States or of any other jurisdiction, either domestic or foreign, or any other place or location respecting either a marriage or relationship not recognized under subsection (1) or a claim arising from such a marriage or relationship.
“(3) For purposes of interpreting any state statute or rule, the term "marriage" means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the term "spouse" applies only to a member of such a union.”
“(2) The state, its agencies, and its political subdivisions may not give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any state, territory, possession, or tribe of the United States or of any other jurisdiction, either domestic or foreign, or any other place or location respecting either a marriage or relationship not recognized under subsection (1) or a claim arising from such a marriage or relationship.
“(3) For purposes of interpreting any state statute or rule, the term "marriage" means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the term "spouse" applies only to a member of such a union.”
First a look at the Federal Defense of Marriage Act
The Act, signed by President Clinton in 1996, provides, in a rather typically cumbersome fashion,
“In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word “marriage” means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word “spouse” refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife. (1 U.S.C. § 7)
“No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.” (28 U.S.C. § 1738(C))
“No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.” (28 U.S.C. § 1738(C))
The Supreme Court has, thus far, not tested the constitutionality of this law. I believe it would fail that test. The Constitution requires each state grant “full faith and credit” to the public acts of another and, in the past, marriage has been treated as such a status to be recognized. But even if this were not the case, the state of Florida seems to be protected!
The Florida statutes on the refusal to recognize “non-traditional” marriage are clear.
The operative statute is cited above. There is simply no need for a Constitutional amendment.
Except there is a purpose!
Florida is well-known for being the only state that absolutely forbids the adoption by homosexuals. Really Long Link
The “Marriage Protection Act” will permanently enshrine Florida’s anti-gay bigotry in the state’s Constitution and remove rights of other unmarried couples. It is not necessary. So why is an organization known as “Florida 4 Marriage” spending so much time, effort and money?
As of today, the Amendment supporters have obtained more than the 611,009 signatures required. According to their site, they are still seeking signatures and money. Again, the question must be raided: why are thousands of dollars being spent to further a cause that is already won?
The organizer and chairman of Florida 4 Marriage is a former political director of the state Republican Party. His hope is that the ballot initiative will encourage “value voters” to shop up at the polls and vote Republican. It is no surprise that Republican activists are the primary source of funds; a total of $ 557,699 has been collected thus far.
The entire enterprise is to get social conservatives “energized” so G.O.P. candidates will be elected. Playing on bigotry against homosexuals is cynical and abusive. It is, perhaps more importantly, a manipulation of good people of faith.
The fight against civil unions has already been fought; the battle is over. The right to civil unions or same-sex marriage has been established.
The term “marriage” is a charged one. What I refer to are formal, legally recognized, unions between individuals of the same sex. From these unions flow legal rights, including the right of intestate inheritance, the right to participate in advance care and medical decisions – in short two people living as a family.
In a subsequent post, I suggest that, regardless of the acts of Florida now, the issue has been joined and there will come a time when same-sex couples will be able to enter into marriage or quasi-marital relationships; the idea of forbidding these will be as foreign as the once common laws preventing mixed race marriage.
If one were truly troubled about the weakened and seemingly fragile nature of marriage among heterosexuall couples, then the concern would be focused on society’s fixation with the role models presented to our children, the number of out-of-wedlock children being born, the transient nature of marriages by recording artists and other performers and so forth The attack on marriage as an institution is from those who cohabit and have children without marriage not from those who want marriage and commitment and cannot have it.
In the meantime, the organizers of the far right will continue to use fear as an election technique.
| 84 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
subscribe to this blog
Comment by Lester Caudill
Round Politics
Thanks to the commentators at Fox, the war on Christmas this year was won by the faithful, and the secular, liberals, atheist, and ACLU was driven back into their dens, but I don't fool myself I know while they are hiding there they are devising another strategy to come back to fight even harder.
Jim Conservative Christians doesn't need Fox or the Republican Party to incite them, they are intelligent enough on their own to make decisions, and are capable of making up their own minds. you see Fox News reports, and lets you decide.
I know that is a novel Idea for the Liberals, since they are accustom to the liberal media that only gives the liberal side, and thus robs the viewers of the whole story. Therefore liberals are only getting half of the News.
Jim you are right the issue of gay marriage was settled, and the majority of the states said no to gay marriage with a few exceptions of liberal states.
I believe marriage is between one man and one woman, and it has been defined that way since time began. God created Adam, and then he created Eve for Adam's wife. See God created Adam, and then Eve, not Adam, and Steve.
But with that said, Conservative have the same right to believe what they believe as do the liberals. If Homosexuals want to inter into a legal binding contract they should have the right to make all the stipulations they want and it should be legal to the full extent of the law.
But it should not contain the words marriage, as that title is a sacred union between man and woman.
I don't like the idea of gay marriage, and I feel that homosexuality is sin, and God doesn't support it at all. That's why he destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, so it cannot be sanctioned by the church. And there it must be a legal matter.
As for gay adoption I don't feel that being gay limits the love you can give to a child. I read your post on Florida ban on homosexual adoption, and about Steve Lofton.
When it comes to children safe guards must be taken to prevent children from being abused, but this man sounds like a very caring, loving human being that exhibited compassion beyond most human beings straight or other wise.
There are so many children out there that need a loving home, I would rather see a homosexual adopt a child than an abusive alcoholic, or child molester. The ones with the most love to give should be allowed to adopt.
The bibles says something to this I was an hungered, and you gave me no meat, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, I was naked and you clothed me not, I was sick, and in prison and ye visited me not.
If straight people have such a issue with these kids being adopted by gays why won't they adopt them and show them some love.
Because in that verse above it say in as much as ye did it not to the least of these my brethren ye did it not to me.
To many times foster parents just do it for the money, and not the love of the kids, this guy Lofton deserves to be able to adopt. I believe being gay does not impair your ability to love, or desire to be loved.
And Jim as for the role models of Marriage that comes out of Hollywood it is disturbing, and unwed child births are not a good role model for our young people. I have been married to the same woman for 27 years, even though we were young we knew not to take it lightly.
Society has made it to easy to get a divorce, it's easier to say I quite than to work it out, Marriage vows should not be taken lightly, and if it is done thought a Minister that Minister should have a long talk with the Bride and Groom, and go over the vows and their meaning.
Jim I do support a Constitutional Amendment protect the sanctity of Marriage between one man, and one woman, but that is just my conservative view.
Comment by Ahmed
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
and indeed the rest of the United States.
Conservative Christians don't need Fox News or the Republican Party to rile them up over issues, but just like liberal atheists (or liberal christians, or liberals in generel) their opinions are easily skewed based on the current political climate.
Many criticisms democrats have amde against George Bush have also been made against Bill Clinton, by Republicans. It isn't a matter of 'conservative' or 'liberal' principles. It is in fact a matter of political allegances.
If your allegance is to freedom, or the truth, you cannot as a rule of thumb tie yourself to either political party or any given news channel. There does not exist an institution free from bias except your mind, only because you have the choice to either allow yourself to succumb to hate or rise above it.
The problem lies there, when you're calm you can consider yourself sane and on the right side, however when you're angry your true colours show. That's when your beliefs are truly tested, that's when the ultiamte question arises, do you need Fox News or the Republican party to shape your beliefs?
If you allow yourself to become emotional based on what happens to the republican party or what fox news reports with no due justification except something happened to the republican party of fox news reported something then you are no more than a pawn for the neo-con agenda.
Of course such behaviour is in no way attached to conservatives, liberals too easily fall into the trap. they support freedom, democracy and generel love for each other, yet make them angry and their true colours show.
Do I make the claim I'm unbiased and always right? No, but I can safely say that I get my news and information from as many different sources as possible, at best the only bias I'll feel is the generel bias the news outlets have. And I in no way will defend any politcal party and will quicker judge than praise the actions of either the Republicans or Democrats. That is the only way you can with at least some credibility make the claim you are not influenced by anything but your principles.
So on the topic of gay marriage, the idea that a gay couple should not have the right to be 'married' and call their union marriage but rather something along the lines of 'legal union' is silly at best.
Who defined marriage? God, yes, you're right, god did. In various religions over the course of history god defined marriage as between a man and a woman. Wonerful, but whose to abide by this definition? Followers of god, and only followers of god. There is nothing in the constitution that legally obliges all people to believe in god. Since god defined marriage as between a man and a woman the only people who will have to adhere to that testimony are believers in god.
An athest can define marriage as between a man and a man if he or she so wishes, and there should be no right by the government to change that. George Washington himself made it clear that America is not a christian nation, the constitution itself goes to lengths to seperate religion and government without making them mutually exclusive to one another. As such religion can't be banned, however religous law cannot be enforced. If you don't believe in god why should you be forced to adhere to his definition of marriage?
Comment by Lester Caudill
Round Politics
One must get their News from more than one Source, and if I didn't that would be irresponsible on my part, but I have been accused of just watching Fox and blindly following them which is a bad characterization of me.
I will gladly tell everyone that I watch CBS Nightly, CNN Headline, I read USA Today, I read Yahoo News, and Fox New, and of course blogs. I do not follow any one source blindly.
I know we do not agree on gay marriage, you are entitled to your opinion, and I will not call it silly as you called my personal opinion.
Lets not go by the religious definition of marriage but let use the universal one that is in use now, which reads the legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of a man and woman to live as husband and wife.
Key words man, woman, husband, and wife, which means male and female, not same sex.
I think that I have clearly shown in past posts that America was in deed founded upon Christianity though many quote of the founding Fathers, but that's not the debate here.
Comment by D. Armenta
The Florida Keys and Everglades
The Black Sheep Chronicles
What constitutes bad manners?
The male mystique
Debate Fan
Despicable, but an old trick used on the mentally lazy since time out of mind. If only people weren't so credulous, this problem wouldn't exist..in the meantime, though, it sure serves to point out who the lowlifes are to those of us who do check our facts!
The other theme ties in with the last post about homosexual couples and their rights to have a legally recognised union and adopt kids.
As a hard-core pragmatist, I can't see why these semantics wars are going on about "what to call it". That's a picayune detail that only serves to cloud the main issue. Do gay couples really care if it's called "marriage" or "legal union" or whatever, as long as it is recognised by law?
Bottom line: there are millions of unwanted/abandoned/orphaned kids in the world that need homes and need them now. If a committed couple wants to have their union recognised by the law and meets the stringent requirements to adopt one or more of those kids, let them do it!! Give them the tax breaks that hetero married couples with kids receive too!
**On a side note, Lester, Ahmed is a Muslim and his religion does not condone gay marriages any more than Christians do. Ahmed simply pointed out, quite rightly, that church and state must be separate. If Christians decide not to recognise gay marriages/unions/etc. that is their prerogative--within the confines of their religion.
You see, Ahmed knows how to debate correctly, point and counterpoint; I have never seen him resort to insults or namecalling with those who do not share his views, unless they attack first. Having debated with the man many many times myself, I can personally attest to that...
Comment by Ahmed
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
Care to comment on that?
You say marriage in the broadest sense, or as you put it, the most universal sense is acknowledged to be between a man and a woman. Yet looking at history there have been as many instances where marriage has been defined as between one man and many women. In fact it is not at all exclusive in any number of cultures or groups, virtually every country throughout the course of history has experienced some form of polygyny. To that end the universal definition of marriage could be described as 'between a man and a woman', yet by the same context of universal definition can be described as 'between a man and many women'. The question is not of what the majority think, that does not make law. Even in a democracy, the minority are protected, thats why democracies thrive, because while they cater to majority opinion they do not in anyway negatively effect the minorities well being.
Any definition of marriage is only that, and only needs to be followed by the one who defines it in any way he or she so chooses. Otherwise marriage could be defined as 'between a man and woman who have truly committed themselves to each other till death do them part', in fact that is the very definition of marriage for many Christians yet divorce rates are quite high. To that end it could be argued marriage does not even exist as according to the definition of many people.
I could just as well say it's wrong to say that marriage is 'between a man and awoman', I'd rather define it as between two people who love each other and who have comitted to each other until death. That doesn't mean you have to follow my definition, with that in mind I don't have to follow your definition.
When it comes to marriage, history, and indeed modern contemporary issues have established that it falls well and truly under the category of 'to each his own'. It is in no way limited to same sex marriage, even marriage between a man and woman have differing definitions from person to person. Trying to establish a constituitonal amendment to define marriage based on a 'universal understanding' is simply not feasible, and in itself would be unconstitutional as it violates the freedom of religion for many people.
Comment by Jim Stillman
Political Certainty
It was only in 1967 when the U.S. Supreme Court finally banned laws prohibiting mixed-race marriage. The same arguments against miscegenation were raised and finally discarded.
Meanwhile, I thank everyone for the civil discourse.
Comment by Damo
One thing that I find difficult to accept is the notion that any onew who opposes any ones issue in America seems to be labled as either an anachist or a reactionary.
Now the issue you present may have a number so called religious conservatives who vote Republican supporting it and their may also be a number supporting the opposing view. But that does not mean every one in either party is so partisan.
The question of civil unions can be different to marriage.
One pertains to law of the land and the other to custom and culture. Do really expect thye law of land to vanquish cultures and customs so easily?
You may find a high level of social tollerance to 'alternative' lifestyles but that is not the same as social acceptance or social approval.
Broken home are accepted as being casualties of society but it is a far cry to claim that society should encourage such things.
You may also find that though society will tollerate 'Gays' the same society does not see it as the ideal. Rather they are an oddity and an inexplicable exception. Baffling to others.
The social experiment of placing children into homes where there are two people of the same sex is different than placing them with same sex couples. In the normal biological order it becomes a paradox. We do not know enough about the psychological results of this upon the children as they grow up.
The next issue is one of nihilism. Yes everything is rationally correct when passed through nihilists testing process. Since all morality is null and viod you can chose whatever moral out come you want. I have never been convinced that this is a good process of logic to base a society on. What new moral boundry can we throw into question? Why not same sex tripples and quads if they same they truly love each other? What is logic basis of rejection for that?
So I am not convinced that the drive for gay adoption rights is driven by a desire to put the childs welfare first instead of an ideological power struggle.
Comment by Lester Caudill
Round Politics
I don't like what you all call the Mainstream Media, because of the Bias that they don't even bother to hide, but I do watch it from time to time mainly the CBS Nightly News as it follows my local New of which I watch, and it isn't Fox.
But with that said Fox is the best News source I have found, but I am sure that you don't agree, and that fine with me, as I can only speak for myself.
As for Marriage between one Man and many woman that is true, but still the key words are man and woman, or women. They still are male and female.
A Constitutional Amendment is what we need here in America, because it will not affect any religious freedoms that is not already denied, Polygamy is a crime in the States, and thus speaking for America alone the definition of marriage is one man and one woman.
Jim you maybe right, if the morals and family values erode further than what they have already, and also it depends if Judges that make laws, instead of Judges that follow laws are appointed.
It will be a sad day in America when that happens, at least for the people that are around that still hold the sanctity of Marriage, and follow the teach of the Bible.
D. Armenta Thanks for the heads up on Ahmed, but we have exchange difference of opinions before, and no doubt will again in the future, but I hope with respect for each other.
Comment by Ahmed
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
My example of 'between a man and many women' was simply to show that there can never be a universal definition of marriage.
But to expand on that argument some religions accept same sex marriages as such, a form of Budhism in Thailand for instance does and it has become so important that the recent constitutional reforms gives specific acknowledgement to same sex couples.
The only feasible argument I can see for such an amendment (perhaps you could show me more) is to save the apparent cultural freefall the US is experiencing. Government however cannot by way of law change culture in the manner it so wishes. Changing the constitution won't save marriages, history shows it well in fact, when you try to legislate against something because it looks like socially unacceptable you get unexpected results, often negative results that takes years to show its full effect.
If there is a cultural freefall it should not be up to the government to start legislating the country out of it. Sure, divorce rates are high, but you're not going to fix that by reaffirming the definition of marriage to the views of any cultural majority. The problem for Christians would be a misunderstanding of what love is coupled with an underestimation of the gravity of commitment. That is the source of the problem, straight couples will in no way at all be effected by gays joining in civil union and calling it marriage, neither positive nor negatively.
No one has to acknowledge anyone elses marriage, marriage itself is grounded heavily in religion and different people have different religous beliefs, as such the definition of marriage will differ from person to person. I don't see how it's possible to create a definition for marriage without violating another persons freedom of religion.