Natoma: the petition explicitely states that the amendment will nullify the Vermont civil union law, and make any such future laws 'unconstitutional".
This is false.
This is false.
dontamend.com
- Thread starter Natoma
- Start date
Nathan said:
Thank you. But it's not courage. It's because I love my partner and I love what we have together. That is why I do everything in my power to protect us and try and expand our rights to full citizens. I will do anything and everything for my family, and eddie is most certainly my family.
No it wouldn't.
It only disallows the courts or legislature from redifining marriage.
They're free to have civil unions have the exact same rights as marriages.
Do you even read the website discussing the purpose and ramification of the amendment? Or do you immediately label anybody who questions your goals as "anti-gay" and assume they're out to get you?
It only disallows the courts or legislature from redifining marriage.
They're free to have civil unions have the exact same rights as marriages.
Do you even read the website discussing the purpose and ramification of the amendment? Or do you immediately label anybody who questions your goals as "anti-gay" and assume they're out to get you?
RussSchultz said:
Ok what are you not understanding. The amendment states:
Amendment said:
So basically it's saying neither the constitution of the united states, or the constitution of any state, nor state nor federal law shall be changed to require that marital status or the legal associations of said marital status, shall be given to unmarried couples or groups.
What does this mean? Because Civil Unions are not marriage, in the eyes of the law, eddie and I are unmarried. Thus, even if we enter into a Civil Union, it would be completely illegal for us to have any marital level benefits.
This part comes directly after the portion that states explicitly that marriage is only one man and one woman. So basically what does that mean? Marriage is one man and one woman, and no one else can have the rights given to those who are married. It will be illegal in the constitution of the USA, the constitution of the States, and all laws attempting to circumvent this are null and void.
Thus, Civil Unions will be null and void. All, existant and future.
You should never, ever, try to get a job as a legal scholar.
It says that marital status or the legal benefits associated with marital status cannot be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups. Right after stating that marriage is only between one man and one woman. Civil Union is not a marriage. Thus legally it is indeed considered an unmarried status. If you get a Civil Union you cannot state on your taxes that you are married.
Thus, Civil Unions will be null and void. All, existant and future. Or should I say, the rights associated with Civil Unions currently. But then, Civil Unions become empty shells of their former selves anyway without the rights currently conferred upon them.
So you tell me what I'm missing. :?
Thus, Civil Unions will be null and void. All, existant and future. Or should I say, the rights associated with Civil Unions currently. But then, Civil Unions become empty shells of their former selves anyway without the rights currently conferred upon them.
So you tell me what I'm missing. :?
No it does not say cannot be conferred.
It says cannot be construed to require that status or rights be conferred.
Which means that when interpreting the law, the courts cannot read into the defininition of marriage to extend to any other class of people than married (man+woman).
It says absolutely nothing about laws pertaining to the class of people in 'civil unions', other than they should not be construed to be 'married'. States are free to have laws that regulate civil unions--they just can't be called marriages. States are free to give identical rights under this proposed amendment.
It says cannot be construed to require that status or rights be conferred.
Which means that when interpreting the law, the courts cannot read into the defininition of marriage to extend to any other class of people than married (man+woman).
It says absolutely nothing about laws pertaining to the class of people in 'civil unions', other than they should not be construed to be 'married'. States are free to have laws that regulate civil unions--they just can't be called marriages. States are free to give identical rights under this proposed amendment.
RussSchultz said:
It says the definition of marriage, and the rights associated with that marital status cannot be conferred upon unmarried couples Russ. This after stating that marriage is only between a man and a woman.
It does not state anything about the class of people in civil unions directly, but it says all unmarried couples and groups cannot receive the rights of the married, or have the term marriage applied to their relationships. That is an umbrella term which covers civil unions because civil unions != marriage in status or in full legal rights. I know what I'm reading, and this is most certainly destroying the status of civil union.
If Civil Unions cannot receive the rights enjoyed by the married, then what point is there in entering a Civil Union? It would have no legal protections, status, rights, etc. Civil Unions enjoy a subset of the rights currently affiliated with marriage. This amendment would make even that illegal, because it's stating those rights affiliated with marriage cannot be conferred upon the unmarried, which covers Civil Unions.
You say you support full marital rights for Civil Unions. Well, one such right is legal recognition across all states of the union. This law basically extends the DOMA which states have no legal reason to recognize the status of a gay relationship from another state, violating the Full Faith and Credit Clause which states that laws in one state *must* be recognized by all other states of the union. This amendment, if attempted to be placed in the constitution, would, ironically, be unconstitutional.
Like I said, Natoma. You should never, ever, apply for a job as a legal scholar. You just don't get it.
You cannot skip words when reading a law, they're all there for a reason.
It says: no <law> can be construed (i.e. interpreted) to require (require what?) that <status or implications of status> be conferred upon non-married people.
In short: no law or court can redefine what marriage is. If you want your law to pertain to somebody who doesn't fit the definition of marriage as defined in the amendment, you must explicitely include that class, rather than rely on the courts to re-interpret and expand what marriage is.
In big bold letters: IT DOES NOT PRECLUDE STATES FROM GRANTING RIGHTS TO CIVIL UNIONS.
You cannot skip words when reading a law, they're all there for a reason.
It says: no <law> can be construed (i.e. interpreted) to require (require what?) that <status or implications of status> be conferred upon non-married people.
In short: no law or court can redefine what marriage is. If you want your law to pertain to somebody who doesn't fit the definition of marriage as defined in the amendment, you must explicitely include that class, rather than rely on the courts to re-interpret and expand what marriage is.
In big bold letters: IT DOES NOT PRECLUDE STATES FROM GRANTING RIGHTS TO CIVIL UNIONS.
Bigus Dickus
Regular
Natoma said:
Sigh. No, it doesn't say that at all. It doesn't say that the rights cannot be conferred to unmarried couples. It very explicitly states that those rights cannot be required to be conferred to unmarried couples under the preexisting definition of marriage.
As Russ has repeatedly pointed out, that simply means that individual states cannot be forced to confer the legal rights of marriage to unmarried couples under the existing defintion of marriage, and that individual states cannot be forced to change the definition of marriage to include same sex partners.
It doesn't in any way imply that states cannot decide to confer those rights to unmarried couples through civil unions. In doesn't make it impossible for civil unions to have the same status as marriages. And presumably, the first step for gays after an ammendment like this is passed would be to fight for that status in their state.
I think I outlined the process in an earlier post. This petition is claiming falsehoods. It is misleading, and probably intentionally so.
And what does this do in real world application? Invalidate Civil Unions. Why? Couple A goes to the court in State B to get legal status conferred upon their relationship. State B declines. End of story. There is no ability to fight through the courts. No ability to challenge this in a legal proceeding.
What would a law like this have done 50 years ago wrt segregation? Black Family A goes to the court in State B to attend a school. State B declines. End of story. There is no Brown v. Board of Education.
It completely removes the judiciary from the equation and cuts off *all* possible routes for the recognition of full and equal status. Why did Vermont even setup Civil Unions? Because couples sued the states for it when they were denied. Why did the process begin in Hawaii? Because couples sued the states for it when they were denied. Why did NY setup domestic partnerships for gay couples? Because gay couples sued after denial.
This law would slam the door shut on that avenue, and thus slam the door shut on gaining legal protections and rights for our relationships.
What would a law like this have done 50 years ago wrt segregation? Black Family A goes to the court in State B to attend a school. State B declines. End of story. There is no Brown v. Board of Education.
It completely removes the judiciary from the equation and cuts off *all* possible routes for the recognition of full and equal status. Why did Vermont even setup Civil Unions? Because couples sued the states for it when they were denied. Why did the process begin in Hawaii? Because couples sued the states for it when they were denied. Why did NY setup domestic partnerships for gay couples? Because gay couples sued after denial.
This law would slam the door shut on that avenue, and thus slam the door shut on gaining legal protections and rights for our relationships.
Bigus Dickus
Regular
Um, that's some really ridiculous logic you've got there. :?
You go to court to seek legal status for your relationship in State A. State A refuses because your relationship doesn't fit their existing definition of marriage, and they have no other classifications other than married and unmarried (i.e., no civil union laws exist in that state).
Your recourse? Judicial system. I don't understand why you think that avenue would be closed to you. The amendment very clearly leaves open the possibility for civil unions to exist with all the rights of marriage, it just couldn't be called marriage unless the state decided to classify it as such. So you fight for legal recognition of your relationship on the grounds of equal protection.
You go to court to seek legal status for your relationship in State A. State A refuses because your relationship doesn't fit their existing definition of marriage, and they have no other classifications other than married and unmarried (i.e., no civil union laws exist in that state).
Your recourse? Judicial system. I don't understand why you think that avenue would be closed to you. The amendment very clearly leaves open the possibility for civil unions to exist with all the rights of marriage, it just couldn't be called marriage unless the state decided to classify it as such. So you fight for legal recognition of your relationship on the grounds of equal protection.
No it does not invalidate civil unions. It does nothing to civil unions. The amendment does not mention civil unions and does not affect their viability or status in any way.
Bigus Dickus said:
If I argue that my relationship deserves the same rights as marriage on the grounds of equal protection, though called a civil union, they can cite this amendment and state that the recognition of my relational status is not required because rights and protections associated with marriage is not required to be conferred upon non-married relational states.
You take this to a judge and they can shoot my argument down with this amendment. And even if the judiciary allows it, the states themselves can shoot down the judge's decision with this amendment.
It is, in summation, legal checkmate.
Bigus Dickus
Regular
Natoma said:
Not required under existing laws and definitions of marriage. Fight for new laws that extend those rights to unmarried couples. The amendment wouldn't bar that course of action. The courts can't "shoot it down" because the amendment would say "the states aren't required to do it."
The states may very well be required to grant equal status civil unions on the bais of equal protection, but they aren't required to revise EXISTING laws to make that happen.
It's simply a way of preventing the label "married" from being co-opted. That's all. It will in no way bar you from seeking equal rights.
So you guys want to fight for your rights. Good for you, laws need to change sometimes. You're just barking at the wrong laws here. Fight for equal status under civil unions. Once all states have them, all states will universally recognize them.
I still don't understand how you're reading the proposed verbage to say that states can't be forced by a court to grant equal status to civil unions. That judicial avenue isn't blocked like you insist.
:?
No constitution, nor any law can be construed to require marital status or legal rights associated with marital status be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.
So you want us to create new laws to get this done? :?
Well guess what. One state will grant that and create a new law to recognize full "we're not calling it marriage" rights upon gay couples, and there will be a new law proposed that will state that all marriage rights cannot be given to non-married couples, be it under current laws or new laws.
DOMA was not as explicit as this proposed amendment. This makes it even more explicit because ways were found to circumvent DOMA. If a way is found around this amendment, if it passes, something else will be created in its wake. It's a never ending circle of "find a loophole, close the loop. find a loophole in that, close the loop. find a loophole in that, close the loop" until eventually there is no loophole to get. I see this quite clearly because I have seen this pattern occur before. First with the Supreme Court decision wrt sodomy in 1986, then DOMA, now this proposed amendment.
Lawmakers will continue proposing new amendments, new laws, new statutes, until it is simply impossible to enter into any legal homosexual relationship in this country. This amendment sets in motion the complete destruction of any and all abilities by homosexuals to achieve equal rights in this country for our relationships.
If it were really that simple to get equal rights conferred, if the right really did want to keep marriage separate but still allow homosexuals the same rights and priviliges as marriage, why not just create an amendment stating explicitly that homosexuals can enter Civil Unions, with all the legal protections and rights of marriage? Why the need for this legal mumbo jumbo to make it that much more difficult for us to enter into legal relationships with one another? It's because the true reason for it is to box us into a corner until eventually it is all but impossible for us to enter into legally recognized relationships.
This is nothing but legal FUD meant to completely obfuscate the road to full legal recognition of homosexual relationships.
