Tag Archives: same-sex marriage

Uncategorized

Same-sex marriage is legal

Same-sex marriage is more constitutional than states’ bans against it.

Court after court has ruled as such. The blog post attached to this item wonders why Texas’s attorney general can’t bring himself to recognize the inevitable trend that’s going to make it legal in Texas.

http://www.texasmonthly.com/burka-blog/modern-world

Greg Abbott is likely to become the state’s next governor. As attorney general, he is obligated to defend what the federal judiciary is saying is indefensible: the state’s ban on same-sex marriage.

The courts are tossing out states’ bans — including the one in Texas — because the bans violate the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment equal protection under the law clause.

The state likely won’t win its appeal on that basis. It will try, though, to persuade federal judges that Texas’s ban is constitutional.

I still struggle a bit with the notion of same-sex marriage. I agree that devoted same-sex couples are entitled to all legal rights as straight couples. Marriage? That particular terminology still bothers me.

The more I hear about courts striking down these bans, the more I am convinced nonetheless that same-sex marriage is more constitutional than the state laws that prevent it.

Paul Burka, the Texas Monthly blogger, wonders why Texas can’t join the 21st century. If the courts keep ruling as they have done, that day might be forced on Texas — and not a moment too soon.

Uncategorized

Same-sex marriage debate gets weird

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott has just put forward one of the more, um, interesting arguments opposing same-sex marriage.

It’s noted in a blog posted by Dallas Morning News editorial writer/blogger Jim Mitchell. It quotes a legal brief filed by the AG in defense of Texas’s constitutional ban on same-sex marriage.

“Because same-sex relationships do not naturally produce children, recognizing same-sex marriage does not further these goals to the same extent that recognizing opposite-sex marriage does,” the brief reads. “That is enough to supply a rational basis for Texas’s marriage laws.”

http://dallasmorningviewsblog.dallasnews.com/2014/07/ag-greg-abbott-texas-opposes-gay-marriage-because-the-state-has-an-interest-in-procreation.html/

How about that?

As Mitchell notes correctly, this comes from an individual — Abbott — who proclaims to be opposed to government overreach into people’s private lives. Now he argues that he wants to preserve marriage for the purpose of allowing straight couples to produce children.

Intriguing, yes?

Well, I think so.

I get that same-sex couples cannot produce children the old-fashioned way. I also get that same-sex couples are quite capable of rearing children in loving homes, that they can promote “family values” and be caring partners to each other and set perfectly legitimate examples of fidelity to their children to emulate.

So, I am not sure I quite get Abbott’s reasoning as he argues against a federal judge’s declaration that the Texas constitutional ban on same-sex marriage violates the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection under the laws of the land.

Mitchell adds: “The state has no role in procreation. That’s a slippery slope that conservative and liberals should find common ground. You can’t argue in favor of getting the government out of the lives of consenting adults and then turn around and claim that the state wants more children.”

Do you think this might become a campaign issue as Abbott seeks to become the next governor of Texas? I’ll say “yes.”

Uncategorized

States' rights or federal authority over marriage?

1 Comment

The debate over same-sex marriage keeps roiling.

I continue to straddle the fence on whether to endorse the notion of full “marriage” for same-sex couples, even though my view of it is “evolving” toward favoring it. I do understand the reason that federal courts are tossing out states’ prohibitions against same-sex couples tying the knot, as in getting married.

The argument against the courts getting involved usually centers on states’ rights. Foes of same-sex marriage — or “marriage equality,” as proponents call it — keep harping on a misconstrued notion that since sexual orientation isn’t mentioned specifically in the U.S. Constitution that judges have no jurisdiction or legal standing to comment on these issues.

The latest such contention came from an editorial published Sunday in my local newspaper, the Amarillo Globe-News. “The 14th Amendment (read it) does not specifically mention marriage — gay or straight,” the editorial notes. OK, I then read the amendment, for the umpteenth time. Here’s part of what it says: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States …” It goes on at the end of that section to say states cannot “deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

No, the amendment doesn’t mention gay marriage. I’d bet some serious dough, however, that the founders deliberately intended to include all citizens regardless of any orientation — sexual or religious, to name just two — under the equal protection clause. Gay couples are seeking to be recognized as being equally entitled to all the rights guaranteed straight couples. That’s a fairly uncomplicated proposal. I’m quite certain the U.S. Constitution covers it nicely in that pesky 14th Amendment.

Texas’s state constitutional amendment “abridges” those rights, a federal court judge has ruled. The ruling is under appeal. Gay marriage isn’t legal in Texas, at least not yet.

This curious argument by foes of “marriage equality” that states’ rights trump the U.S. Constitution on issues not delineated by the founders doesn’t hold up under scrutiny.

I’m guessing the surest way for those who oppose same-sex marriage to have the practice banned entirely in this country is to campaign for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that supersedes the 14th Amendment.

Good luck with that. A majority of Americans now favors same-sex marriage.

Me? I’m still grappling with it.

Uncategorized

Elect federal judges? Oh, please!

Many of those on the right are quite fond of criticizing “unelected federal judges” who issue rulings that go against their world view.

What, then, is their alternative? Do they want to elect those who sit on the federal bench? Do they wish to do away with the federal judiciary?

I mention this because the U.S. Supreme Court recently upheld a University of Michigan policy that disallows affirmative action practices when considering who the school should admit. Did those on the left issue similar cries against those “unelected judges”? I didn’t hear any.

And yet, when judges keep striking down states’ bans on same-sex marriage, the cries go out from those who think the federal judiciary is overreaching when it declares states cannot write laws that violate U.S. constitutional provisions, such as the one that provides for “equal protection” under the law, regardless of sexual orientation.

Perhaps my favorite criticism of the high court came when it ruled 5-4 to uphold the Affordable Care Act. The ruling was narrowly defined and it was decided by a single vote, when Chief Justice John Roberts voted with the majority to keep the ACA intact. The criticism — from the right, of course — went something like this: The law should be tossed out because a narrow majority on the Supreme Court voted to keep it, and that the one-vote majority really didn’t mean the law is constitutional.

The founders had it exactly right when they empowered the president with the authority to appoint judges to the bench for life. They sought to de-politicize the federal bench by disallowing the election of federal judges.

States, of course, retain the right to elect judges. Texas even elects judges on partisan ballots, meaning that judicial candidates of one party has a built-in advantage over candidates of the other party. In Texas, that means if you’re a Republican, you’re in; it used to be the other way around, when Democrats were dominant.

Either way, good judges from the “out” party are kicked out simply because they are of the wrong political persuasion.

The federal judiciary, from the Supreme Court on down, functions precisely as the framers intended for it.

Uncategorized

Same-sex couples jumping through hoops

Let’s see if we can sort this story out a bit.

The Amarillo Globe-News reported Sunday about a same-sex couple seeking a “family membership” at the Amarillo Town Club. The club has denied the couple such a membership, citing the state’s ban on same-sex marriage.

The couple, two women, were asked to provide a marriage license. They aren’t yet married, but plan to wed soon presumably in a state that recognizes same-sex marriage. The club informed the women that the marriage license had to be issued in Texas to make their marriage legal. Well, the state doesn’t recognize same-sex marriage, so that’s out.

The couple is petitioning the Town Club to grant them a family membership and to allow them to proceed with their weight-loss plan.

Here’s where it gets a bit sticky for the couple: The Amarillo Town Club is owned by Baptist Community Services, a faith-based organization. It’s not a public institution, funded by taxpayer money. Its members pay the freight with membership dues. Thus, the Town Club is within its rights to set admission policy any way it so chooses, as long as it doesn’t discriminate.

You want it to get even stickier?

Here goes.

My wife and I joined the Amarillo Town Club more than a decade ago. We, too, have a family membership. We signed up as husband and wife.

No one at the Amarillo Town Club — either at the main facility at 45th and Cornell or the one at Hillside — ever asked us to produce a marriage license. I cannot recall precisely, but perhaps they asked us to show them driver’s licenses to prove we were who we said we were.

A marriage license? The issue never came up. Were we even legally married? No one ever asked that question.

For the record, my wife and I were married — legally — on Sept. 4, 1971 in a little Presbyterian Church in southeast Portland, Ore. That’s in case anyone is interested.

All of this leads me to conclude that it appears some discrimination involving the two young women at the center of this story may have taken place.

Yes, indeed. This story is going to get quite complicated.

Uncategorized

Tide moving against same-sex marriage ban

Is it me or is there an increasingly inexorable tide beginning to swell across the nation in the move to legalize marriage between two people of the same sex?

Virginia is the latest state to have its ban on same-sex marriage overturned. It joins Oklahoma and Utah among the ranks of states that have had similar laws tossed aside.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/judge-strikes-down-virginia-gay-marriage-ban

The federal judge in this case was appointed to her post by President Obama.

U.S. District Judge Orenda Wright Allen wrote: “Our Constitution declares that ‘all men’ are created equal. Surely this means all of us. While ever-vigilant for the wisdom that can come from the voices of our voting public, our courts have never long tolerated the perpetuation of laws rooted in unlawful prejudice.”

So it goes on.

Texas remains on the list of states where gays and/or lesbians might sue for similar results.

The Texas Constitution has been amended to disallow same-sex marriage. Its language says virtually the same thing the Oklahoma Constitution says it its ban. Yet a judge in the Sooner State tossed out the prohibition for the same reasons that Judge Allen did in Virginia.

What has been most interesting to me was that Texas already had a statute on the books that prohibited same-sex marriage, but the Legislature and Gov. Rick Perry decided it wanted to double-down on the prohibition by adding an amendment to the state Constitution.

I’m betting the tide is going to catch up eventually with Texas’s ban. It’s likely just a matter of time.

Uncategorized

Okla. same-sex marriage ban nixed; is Texas next?

Well, this is a fascinating development in the on-going debate over same-sex marriage.

A U.S. district judge has struck down Oklahoma’s ban on same-sex marriage, declaring that the state’s constitutional amendment violates the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the one granting equal protection under the law.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/oklahoma-gay-marriage-ban-struck-down

I’ll point here that Oklahoma is arguably even redder — meaning more Republican — than Texas, which is pretty darn red.

That begs an obvious question, in my mind. Would the Texas constitutional amendment stand up under a challenge such as the one mounted in Oklahoma?

Judge Terrence Kern wrote: “Equal protection is at the very heart of our legal system and central to our consent to be governed. It is not a scarce commodity to be meted out begrudgingly or in short portions. Therefore, the majority view in Oklahoma must give way to individual constitutional rights.”

Two couples of the same sex challenged the Oklahoma ban on same-sex marriage in 2004. Oklahoma’s constitutional amendment was approved by a majority vote of all Oklahomans. The judge’s ruling declares that even with a majority vote, the amended state constitution cannot supersede the U.S. Constitution.

Precisely the same thing happened in Texas, where voters approved a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. To be honest, that vote made me uncomfortable for a number of reasons, the chief of which was that the state already had a statute on the books that prohibited people of the same sex from marrying each other. The Legislature, though, decided to add some extra enforcement of that law by piling on a constitutional amendment.

Texans then said “not just ‘no,’ but ‘hell no!'” to the same-sex marriage prohibition.

Is our state’s constitutional amendment any more legitimate than the one struck down in Oklahoma?

I’m thinking it’s not.

Uncategorized

County clerk shows honor and resigns

Roosevelt County (N.M.) Clerk Donna Carpenter has just quit her job and given new meaning to the term “honor.”

http://www.pntonline.com/2013/12/20/roosevelt-county-clerk-resigns/

Carpenter resigned her post because she disagrees with the New Mexico Supreme Court’s decision that effectively legalizes same-sex marriage in that state.

Carpenter said she believes more strongly in God’s law than in man’s law. Thus, she quit a job she’d held for only about a year after being elected in 2012.

Why the honor in her quitting?

It’s a matter of principle. She decided she no longer could serve as county clerk if the state’s highest court was going to make her issue marriage licenses against her deeply held religious beliefs.

I cannot quibble with her decision.

I’m not going to enter the discussion over whether I endorse “marriage equality.” I’m still grappling with that in my own heart and head. Donna Carpenter’s decision to resign, though, is a deeply principled one for which she should be applauded.

She could have stayed on, swallowed hard and said, in effect, that while she disagrees with the ruling, she took an oath to follow the laws of the state. Or, she could have kept her job and refused to endorse the ruling issued by the New Mexico court; the result of that would have been a costly and probably futile court battle that would have cost her constituents a boatload of money.

She didn’t. She said she couldn’t follow the law and would surrender the office to someone who could follow it.

Donna Carpenter made an honorable decision.