Crocker and Bigots

[spencert]

Last night, I went to go see former abassador Ryan Crocker give a talk at Whitman College (his alma mater) on US Middle East policy. It was really interesting in some regards, particularly his brief history lessons, but it was also maddening to listen to as someone who was against the war in Iraq from the first hints that it was going to happen

Comments

[mizrobot]

Oh yeah, it's fascism to spend taxpayer money on your own citizens but patriotism to spend it on killing people in other countries. Especially brown people! DUH.

I had to explain to a couple people the other day why the majority shouldn't be allowed to vote for the rights of a minority. I might be totally wrong in my understanding of governmental process here, but it seems like the gay marriage movement needs to move from campaigning for individual states, where things are at risk of being sabotaged by the initiative process, and move towards a federal amendment allowing marriage between any two consenting adults. Yeah? Furthermore, I say dissociate the institution of marriage from the legally-binding contract between two adults who choose to spend their lives together. The churches can have their precious marriage and exclude or include whoever they want and the goverment can just just call it a civil union or a domestic partnership contract or whatever and remove the issue of morality from what is essentially a legal contract anyway. Right??? Vote Maggie for President!

[nikoel]

I agree on the federal level tip! From what I understand, it's federally unconstitutional for the majority to vote on the rights of the minority, but it's been happening because individual state constitutions allow it or versions of it. I'm not well versed in all the state constitutions, but I believe this was true for California.

I'm also fine with all state recognized "marriages" just being called civil unions. I don't know what the popular opinion on that is though I would imagine most people who did not have a religious ceremony wouldn't care. Either that, or they'd go get a religious marriage.

[more_bjorn]

I agree with the separation of civil and religious marriage, but the federal amendment about marriage is a little bit of a stretch. Each state has its own way of defining marriage in all sorts of ways: Nevada has no waiting period, Montana allows for common-law marriage, and Arkansas has "covenant" marriage. If they want to do things their own way, that's fine by me. Getting the federal government involved though, either to allow or ban gay marriage across the board, seems like it's taking the power from the states in a way that's just not warranted.

[mizrobot]

I see this as a civil rights issue so I'm not sure I agree. Just as the Voting Rights Act made it illegal for individual states to discriminate against minorities who wanted to vote, I think it is time for some kind federal act to make it illegal for states to discriminate against those who want to get married. Is that crazy? Makes sense to me.

[more_bjorn]

But the Voting Rights Act wasn't an amendment to the Constitution, and the federal government has no Constitutional jurisdiction over the marriage contracts that the state governments manage. The federal government can get involved when making sure that marriages in Vermont are applicable everywhere else, but that's it... marriage is a state issue, not a federal one.

That's not to mention that if you're going to create a Constitutional amendment, you need a two-thirds majority in the House and Senate, and 34 states voting to approve the Amendment. If you can't get a marriage equality amendment to pass in *Maine*, a reasonably purple state, getting an amendment to make gay marriage legal in ALL states probably won't pass either.

I agree that it is a civil rights issue, and it shouldn't be left to a simple vote by bigots. However, under the government structures we have now, we simply can't force gay marriage through without running into what happened in Maine. It sucks, but I'd much rather work at the issue and win popular opinion (which is happening, slowly but surely) rather than change the way the government works and run the risk of getting shafted later.

[mizrobot]

Okay so amendment is the wrong term. As I said I am rusty in my knowledge of how the government works.

[joshc]

The main issue here is that the federal government is involved with marriage by way of things like federal income taxes and other benefits. I don't entirely see why this aspect should depend on individual states' definitions.

I also agree with President Maggie that separating civil and religious marriage seems like the optimal solution. To me, it's unfortunate that something like R-71 limited civil unions to same-sex couples and any senior citizens, rather than allowing civil unions for everyone. Maybe this would be the first step toward decoupling these two institutions: require all couples to have a civil union and leave marriage for the church or internet ministry. Yet, even though I prefer this kind of solution, I can't really imagine it going anywhere in the near future. And, of course, until these new-fangled civil unions were available to everyone and carried the same benefits, rights, (and risks) of current marriage this remains an important civil rights issue.

The degree to which anyone -- let alone a majority -- seems to oppose equality is just staggering. I can hardly wrap my head around it.

[more_bjorn]

The federal government is involved in dealing with couples that are married, not defining who can get married. The states still do that. DOMA does say that same-sex couples can't be recognized by the federal government for certain benefits, but the states are still in control of marriage. Even if it were repealed, same-sex marriage would still be illegal in a large number of states.

But I completely agree about civil unions. Every "marriage" should be a civil union in my opinion. And the fact that we have to put up basic rights to a vote is ludicrous. It may be our system, but that doesn't make it right.

[joshc]

I understand the distinction, I just have trouble remembering that just because the federal government has an interest in dealing with couples who are married, they do not need to have a corresponding interest in equal access to marriage across the states (even disregarding the issue of same-sex marriage).

I guess that this is yet another case of our wacky federalism fetish. Although that same respect for the importance of states' rights should be contrary to upholding DOMA, I'm skeptical that the current Court is eager to overturn it.