Honestly, now that Obama is the nominee........

[ajmccarrell]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

As I posted earlier, the Republican administration in charge of Texas prosecuted the case of Lawrence v. Texas ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas ) - which asked the USSC to up hold the state law in Texas that made it a crime for gay people to have sex, though married and unmarried heterosexual people apparently could fellate and sodomize all they wanted (this remains unclear though). The Lawrence case overturned the Bowers case, which though immediately applicable to the prosecution (yes, they were prosecuted as two other guys were in Lawrence) of two gay guys for having sex, the GA statute applied to all sodomy (defined as all anal and oral sex regardles of sexuality or marital status).

So, there's more than one. In fact, there's a few. Capice?

I am not making this up though you may not want to believe it

The Lawrence V. Texas case is QUITE a stretch. The original law was British common law, unless you want to blame Republicans for the laws of the British. Also, any administration's justice department, whether Republican or Democrat is REQUIRED to defend the existing law whether they want to or not. It would not be the prosecution in a Supreme Court case anyway, it would be Petitioner V. Respondant, except in the originating criminal complaint. There would be no "prosecution" but a representative from the local justice department obligated to argue on the side of existing law. Otherwise, you'd have prosecutors that refuse to prosecute individuals with whom they agree or find pity. What the Lawrence case shows is not bigotry, but that our democracy works. Even Thomas in his dissent stated that the law was "uncommonly silly", but his problem had more to do with their advocating of rights that are not specifically stated in the constitution and that the majority opinion was formed with application of law that would be inconsistent with other rulings. This is frankly how bad laws get overturned. What you are advocating, it sounds like to me, is that our law & order system should decide on a case by case asis whether or not to apply stare decisis, instead of applying the existing laws equally and letting the parties fight it out up the food chain. Frankly, the law worked in Lawrence the way it was supposed to, a bad law got overturned. I don't see in this case here that any "republican" was discriminating against gay people. The republican objection was based on a strict constructionist interpretation that there were other reasons to strike down the law besides the law applied and that they believed that states had the right to govern their own morality.

Also, as far as property rights and inheritance rights go, you can own anything as "tenants in common" or any other form of title you choose where the other party gets the property upon your death. Also, writing a good will would take care of most of the issues you mention. Inheritance is another thing the government should stay the hell out of too. What right does the government have to say who I can give my stuff to when I die? If I want to create my own dynasty, why shouldn't I be allowed to?

Maryland's law concerning interacial marriage also has nothing to do with Republicans. You forget that it was a republican congress that passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 with the help of a Democratic President. While the Republicans in Congress were working on this act, Bobby Kennedy was busy wiretapping Martin Luther King because he thought he was a threat to national security!

To answer your last question, I don't think the government should have any say in marriage, except for age of consent laws, but that's a criminal matter anyway.

The actual issuance of the license is hardly the point considering legal prohibitions to certain marriages have been around far longer regardless of whether a state issued license was issued. As early as 1665, the Maryland colonial assembly made interracial marriage a crime. In addition, there are more benefits then the tax system. Try property rights and inheritance rights for starters. In any event and no matter how long rights are being given based solely on religion, the issuance of rights based on religion is wrong and unconstitutional.

But and again, I agree with you because I think you said you would be for the word "marriage" to appear in no law book. If two consting adults want to marry, they should find a church to marry them and then contract for their property rights. To me, that is the fairest way. Sadly, the R party finds that idea incomprehensible and abhorrent. So we have to work with what we have, which is pathetic if you ask me. Interestingly, many far right religious leaders find the idea of the state's requirement for a license abhorrent.

For the record, do you think the state should have any business telling any teo consenting adults anything about marrying? Or, do you believe the state has the right to prohibit consenting adults from marrying based solely on religion?

The Lawrence V. Texas case is QUITE a stretch. The original law was British common law, unless you want to blame Republicans for the laws of the British. Also, any administration's justice department, whether Republican or Democrat is REQUIRED to defend the existing law whether they want to or not. It would not be the prosecution in a Supreme Court case anyway, it would be Petitioner V. Respondant, except in the originating criminal complaint. There would be no "prosecution" but a representative from the local justice department obligated to argue on the side of existing law. Otherwise, you'd have prosecutors that refuse to prosecute individuals with whom they agree or find pity. What the Lawrence case shows is not bigotry, but that our democracy works. Even Thomas in his dissent stated that the law was "uncommonly silly", but his problem had more to do with their advocating of rights that are not specifically stated in the constitution and that the majority opinion was formed with application of law that would be inconsistent with other rulings. This is frankly how bad laws get overturned. What you are advocating, it sounds like to me, is that our law & order system should decide on a case by case asis whether or not to apply stare decisis, instead of applying the existing laws equally and letting the parties fight it out up the food chain. Frankly, the law worked in Lawrence the way it was supposed to, a bad law got overturned. I don't see in this case here that any "republican" was discriminating against gay people. The republican objection was based on a strict constructionist interpretation that there were other reasons to strike down the law besides the law applied and that they believed that states had the right to govern their own morality.

Also, as far as property rights and inheritance rights go, you can own anything as "tenants in common" or any other form of title you choose where the other party gets the property upon your death. Also, writing a good will would take care of most of the issues you mention. Inheritance is another thing the government should stay the hell out of too. What right does the government have to say who I can give my stuff to when I die? If I want to create my own dynasty, why shouldn't I be allowed to?

Maryland's law concerning interacial marriage also has nothing to do with Republicans. You forget that it was a republican congress that passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 with the help of a Democratic President. While the Republicans in Congress were working on this act, Bobby Kennedy was busy wiretapping Martin Luther King because he thought he was a threat to national security!

To answer your last question, I don't think the government should have any say in marriage, except for age of consent laws, but that's a criminal matter anyway.