Friday, March 31, 2006

Radicals Target Non-Churchgoers

Brother Charles over at "Two Conservatives" (cute moniker, BTW) has an interesting post on efforts of partisans of the radical homosexual agenda to target non-churchgoers in the Tidewater area, in an effort to defeat the marriage amendment slated to appear on the November ballot. They're going to be knocking on doors between 10 a.m. and 2 p.m. on Sunday.

Two thoughts: first, I wonder if they're going to be using people like the courier I ran into in the office of the Clerk of Court for the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, in San Francisco? He was in full bondage gear, including a dog collar.

Second, I guess they figure that they've already got the votes of those you'd find in bathhouses and homosexual bars.


NoVA Scout said...

James: how do you know that the guy you saw at the Federaldrome on Golden Gate wasn't a happily married heterosexual (his wife might have been a bit bossy, I imagine)?

More to the point, I think it a clearly defensible conservative position that the Bill of Rights should not be encumbered with relative minutiae about who can contract with whom about what. It is not really a prohibitive document, but a preservative document of rights of the citizens. This is a slipshod piece of drafting the legitimate purposes of which (definition of "marriage" under state law) could and should be dealt with in statute.

James Young said...

I made no comment whatsoever suggesting that he WASN'T "a happily married heterosexual," nova scout, so I feel no need to respond to your question.

As for your assertion that "a clearly defensible conservative position that the Bill of Rights should not be encumbered with relative minutiae about who can contract with whom about what," you apparently proceed from the faulty premise that "marriage" is simply a question about "who can contract with whom about what." To the contrary, it is about the fundamental relationship in human civilization predating the Bill of Rights, and it is about the integrity of the language. I also dispute your assertion that its drafting is "slipshod."

Sadly, partisans of the radical homosexual agenda have forced this necessity on Virginia, but they are sophisticated enough to prey on what normally are conservative virtues to advance their radical agenda.

David said...

You apparently proceed from the faulty premise that "marriage" is simply a question about "who can contract with whom about what."

Your premise is incorrect, James. Scout said nothing about the nature of marriage. As a lawyer it should be evident to you that the proposed amendment deals, not only with marriage, but precisely with "who can contract with whom about what." Have you read it?

Perhaps if it dealt strictly with marriage, we would not be having this conversation.

Do I understand you to be saying that there is an escape clause for conservative virtues when you do not like the outcome of applying them?

James Young said...

David, I don't know what the point is in arguing with someone who doesn't even understand the language. The word "marriage," for instance.

And no, I don't buy into the talking points of the far Left and/or partisans of the radical homosexual agenda ("if it dealt strictly with marriage").

And I don't believe for a minute that "if it dealt strictly with marriage, we would not be having this conversation." Anybody who does simply isn't paying attention.

David said...

LOL! Translation: James can't address my points, so must redirect. Again, please indicate in some way that you have read the proposed amendment.

And please find rhetorical devices that are less transparent.

James Young said...

LOL! Like I said, your desire to characterize perverse couplings (or triplings, etc.) as "marriage" demonstrates your inability to understand the plain meaning of words, so I guessl I'll have to put it in plain language: you and your partisans are lying about the effect of the amendment. And yes, I've read it. I'm simply not going to engage talking points rhetoric from a radical homosexual agenda.

NoVA Scout said...

James; I wouldn't object to (although I still haven't yet found anyone who can explain the need for) a statute that defines "marriage" as a legally recognized status between one man and one woman. My point (which I think you're aware of but chose to ignore) is that the proposed amendment should not be housed in the Bill of Rights and that it is overly broad. On either basis, I find it objectionable - together I don't seen how conservative voters who demand precision in the actions of their governments and respect for fundamental historic documents such as the National and state Bills of Rights, could support this. No doubt many will, however.

James Young said...

You call it "minutiae," NoVA Scout, but the reason it is necessary to house it constitutionally is because activist judges are perverting the Constitution (either Federal or, in the case of Massachusetts, a document going back to Adams) to discover arguments to find such statutes unconstitutional. It is hardly necessary to point out to you that state and federal Constitutions trump statute.

I don't like cluttering up the organic law unnecessarily, either. The problem is that judges who want to make new law rather than interpret existing law have made it necessary.

NoVA Scout said...

By that theory I suppose there's very little we can do to contract the ability of certain groups to enter into enforceable contracts as long as we assert our majority preference in the (formerly) revered State Bill of Rights as opposed to state statutes.

I suppose you also have to ask what you (we) are trying to accomplish. I would think state statute would be as potent as a constitutional measure in clearly defining the legal status of "marriage" for state (as opposed to religious) purposes as a one man/one woman enterprise. But the amendment goes much farther and prohibits any effort to replicate the effects or benefits (Sorry, I'm travelling and don't have the text, but you can look it up) of marriage. that's pretty broad. It's that overbreadth that makes this measure a bad idea and that makes it vulnerable, wherever place.

Frankly, I think the federal judiciary (activist or not) will take a cleaver to this once it is properly framed up for argument. I suppose putting it in the Bill of Rights might have a bit of an intimidating effect on state judges, but it won't cow the feds.

David said...

Have you read the recent Ohio appellate decision?

The following is excerpted from the decision of Ohio's 2nd District Court of Appeals, located in Dayton, in the case of State of Ohio v. Karen Ward:


This appeal concerns the issue of whether the provision in the domestic violence statute extending the protections of that criminal statute to "a person living as a spouse" offends the Defense of Marriage amendment to the Ohio Constitution adopted by the voters in 2004 because it recognizes "a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the effect of marriage."

We conclude that it does.

Let us suppose that the (Defense of Marriage) amendment were given the more restrictive interpretation. The evident purpose behind the second sentence of the amendment — to prohibit the indirect recognition of non-traditional marriages — could die the death of a thousand cuts. Imagine the adoption of a testimonial privilege for quasi-spouses, the addition of quasi-spouses alongside spouses and children as beneficiaries in wrongful death actions, the addition of quasi-spouses to the class of family members who can recover for loss of consortium, or the addition of a quasi-spouse to the list of persons who must be notified of a woman's intention to have an abortion.

The list is endless.

At what point would the second sentence of the amendment be deemed to have been violated? Would only the last in the series of legislative enactments, common law rulings, and administrative or judicial rule-making be voided for unconstitutionality?

Suppose that, after a long series of legal struggles to enhance the rights of non-traditional, quasi-spouses, the only remaining point of difference in Ohio between a spouse and a quasi-spouse were that the spouse, but not the quasi-spouse, could claim an additional $25 credit on the Ohio income tax? Would that avoid implicating the second sentence of the amendment because actual spouses and quasi-spouses are not treated identically for all legal purposes in Ohio?

In our view, the jurisprudence contemplated by the hypotheticals recited above would be unworkable. The general principle evident in the second sentence to the Defense of Marriage amendment is that a legal status of a de facto marital relationship shall neither be created nor recognized in Ohio as having the same effect as the legal status of a de jure marital relationship. It is tempting to speculate which of potential exceptions to this general principle would have found favor with a majority of the Ohioans who voted for the Defense of Marriage amendment, but this would be mere speculation.

In our view, the second sentence was intended to avoid the prospect of the Ohio General Assembly, or the Ohio courts, establishing exceptions to its reach.


Emphasis added. Nuff said.

NoVA Scout said...

The first couple of lines of my last comment should have read: ". . . there's very little we CAN'T do . . . ."