Journal JetScootr's Journal: We The People 2
When the courts (I forget at which level) recently made some decision regarding gay marriages (I forget exactly what they decided), someone at work asked if I thought gay marriages should be legal. I had a double answer that the person found so surprising they didn't really believe it. I said, "One, it is almost legal already, in all 50 states, and B>, Banning gay marriage is Unconstitutional"
I asked her, "What are the first three words of the Constitution?" She gave me a blank stare (Cut her some slack - she's foreign born.). I said "We the people". I gave her this thought experiment:
See that empty cubicle there? Let's say two people worked there. Every day they go to lunch together. They agree to do this, and they don't include us. Is it any of our business?
She said whose?
I said, you and I - is it any of our business if those two people in the next cubicle go to lunch together without us?
She said, no.
If they decide to go have a beer together after work every night, is that our business?
She said no again.
OK, If they decide to sleep together every night, is THAT our business?
Again, no.
OK, If they're sleeping together every night, and they're the same sex, is it our business then?
She said, but don't you think that...
I rudely interrupted - Is it our business, yes or no?
She said, well, I guess not.
I said, you and I, we are the "We The People" the constitution is talking about. And if it's not our business, we shouldn't be telling people not to do it.
---------
Now, a little anal-retentive blathering about the details of what the constitution says, and why I said the two things up at the top:
First, I'm just a blabbermouth, not a lawyer. Don't take this as legal advice, or even a good idea. It's just my IANALysis.
Almost legal? How's that?
Well, marriage has three main parts, in the eyes of the law: First, the social contract. That is, the moral, religious and emotional commitment. The law has nothing to say on this, and cannot. The heart is beyond the reach of the courts.
Next, the fiduciary responsibilities. In Texas, this means: What either obtains while married belongs equally to both. What either had BEFORE marriage still belongs to that one person. That includes both assets and liabilities. Gawd, you can believe I know this part. Well, nearly all of family law can be "cut and pasted" into a contract. After all, a contract is basically a law between the parties that agree to it and sign on the dotted line. So cut and paste all this into a contract. There ya go - it's now legal, between two guys or between two gals. Hell, why stop at two? Two of either and more of any...add anything but animals. (Animals can not enter into contracts)
Third, the kids. This is where gay marriages are left out. The law (of Texas, anyway, not sure about other states) recognizes only the blood kin or the legally adopting parents of the children when determining custody. There's probably some other provisions, but definitely, parents by blood or by adoption have first claim, and they must be proven incompetent before other people, including gay partners, can step in. This is my understanding, it may be wrong or incomplete! Until cloning is perfected, the marriage law must change for there to be anything like equal treatment for both parents in a gay marriage.
OK, so that's how gay marriage is "almost legal" already. Just write a contract in leiu of existing law. Include large chunks of the Texas family code, and you're there (almost).
Banning gay marriage is Unconstitutional? Huh? First, read the Const, Article 4, section 1:
"Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State."
This sentence in the constitution is why you can be single and drunk in Vegas and hungover and married when the plane lands back in New York. The public acts referenced here include marriage - if you're married in one state, you're married in the other 49. It's also why state decisions on gay marriage have such import - As soon as one state legalizes gay marriage, gay marriage will be legal in all 50. There have been too, too many court decisions making a deadbeat spouse live up to marital responsibilities for any conservatives to wiggle out of this one.
Now read on to The 14th Amendment:
"...nor shall any state
Equal means all persons treated the same. Laws against gay marriages are saying, in effect, "Persons WITH these combinations of characteristics can legally marry, BUT persons WITHOUT these characteristics CAN't legally marry". See how this law treats people differently? Separate but equal, is that the way it should be? It don't work for race, it don't work for gender.
Now don't post or email any flames about being gay or a gay lover. I'm neither. I love the constitution, though, and I hate seeing it get twisted because of some people's personal needs to control others unjustly.
Thoughts and Exclamations (Score:2)
Hooyah!
Of course, you and she are both reasonable people who respond to logic. There are still "people" in "We The People" who do not. This is much of the reason we find ourselves in the predicament we are, today.
Some people, many of them in power, do not behave logically with respect to acting for the people. Many of these folks
Re:Thoughts and Exclamations (Score:2)
I like to think that main purpose for a system of laws is to protect the reasonable people from the unreasonable people. Think about it - the person who needs a law is the person who doesn't know or won't do right from wrong. You have to tell such a person what the right thing is to do, or force them to do the right thing under threat. Years ago, we were more reasonable. Kids who got beat u