BLAME THE GOP FOR PRO-SODOMY COURT DECISION

The Heustis Update ^ | June 27, AD 2003 | Reed R. Heustis, Jr.

[unspun]

The "in your face" activists really burn me...but not all gays are of this type. I know several who live quietly, don't go to "gay pride" events, are conservatives when it comes to the Constitution, and often vote Republican. I have absolutely no problem having people like this for my neighbors.

Plus some of the greatest figures in human culture and history have been homosexual. As a student of these areas of human achievement, I am in their debt.

With all apologies, I find myself chuckling here.... Ain't it the way of the world? I tend to wince a little, when Tschaikovsky is on the radio. Then there are the painters. I've seen a bit of the study and I'm even prone to agree with those who think the Mona Lisa is a self portrait! No wonder the wry smile. And no wonder that we have so many nudes in paintings, to say nothing about those tights the ballet dancers wear. 8-o And no wonder there are so many proctologists in New York and California for the comedy club comics to joke about. These shining elites being so delightful, it's a wonder they didn't just settle for masturbation as their ultimate intercourse. I guess such a narcissist may have enough natural desire for relationship though, to hope for another such as himself, instead. Is that the way it was Oscar?

Getting back to your point, there are even a good number of homosexuals "out" and about that are against homosexual "marriage," from what I hear.

I don't think that we really need to be very doomy and gloomy really. If things get more like Rome then they will and the church grew then quite well, though many suffered terribly. (Athens might be more pertinent, though.) There have been times in pro-life political work that I've been much more blessed to see the flag of Israel then our USA flag, not for what it is, but for what better country is on its other side.

I say smile and wield sharp swords! Work lovingly and smart and hard and gaily. But what outrages me are the Christians that think that all we have to do is pray and live such shining, enrobed lives that people drop what they are doing and ask, "Just what is it about you that is so wonderful, compared to me?" The misconstrued old "Piety Movement" in the realm of Evangelicals/Fundamentalists shoulders some blame, as well as the High Church hypocracies.

Maybe the time I've been most outraged (enraged) of all myself, was during Jack Kemp's debate vs. Al Gore in 1992, when all this great Christian Conservative Hope wanted to talk about was economics.... (As if economics hasn't been what has been driving us down the cesspool.) Let's get Christians to stop being politicians like Councilman Lott.

[unspun]

I was referring to Abraham's nephew, but Trent would be appropriate too, of course.

[unspun]

Although I think I can recall him very uncomfortably standing up for the facts of defiled life, when it comes to homosexuality, a few years ago. Relatively speaking, Trent Lott was heroic!

[betty boop]

I don't see the 10th Amendment as much of a safe haven nor battleship here, though. It is simply contradictory to say that matters such as marriage and pro-life (and freedom from slavery) are so critical that the future of our nation depends upon them, and yet to say that it should be a matter of compromise and laissez faire for federal policy, left instead for the states to decide.

Thank you so much, Brother Arlen, for your excellent and insightful (multiple) replies. There's not a thing you said that I would disagree with. For what you seemed to be saying is something quite uncontroversial to me: The problem is in the culture, not in the political institutions per se. POLITICS FOLLOWS CULTURE. And IMHO you were right to see in ancient Athens a better analog to our present situation than Rome.

Which is why I said, to staunch the bleeding, diversify the political centers, devolve political power from Washington to the 50 centers that are closer to us where we live, where we may have greater personal impact on shaping the public discourse. This is the exact reverse of what the Left has been working at, with incredible success, for over 50 years at least. It'll only buy you some time. But maybe something can be done in that time to get the culture back into a more sane position, by empowering the "grass roots" to a greater degree. Plus you get to try (potentially) 50 different approaches to public policy questions, and then get to see what "works." It has been remarked that the states are great laboratories of sociopolitical experiment. I think that's true; but Washington entirely obviates this process. States conform to its will, not the other way around.

For Plato, the polis -- political society -- is man writ large. For Marx, political society is man writ small. But to make the latter work requires man to really be small in the great scale of things.

The point of both cases is, if man, by and large, is disordered, so will be the society of which he is part and participant. Thus we have a cultural problem, which inevitably drives the political. In the end, we get what we "deserve."

Work needs to be done on the cultural side, before political realities can be shaped. Marx knew this -- very, very well. And masterfully exploited this knowledge. And that is why the America we know and love is dying, right in front of our very eyes.

[unspun]

It would take a very Republican Senate and President, for quite awhile, to make this the new default (by means of courts, of course). It's possible....

[unspun]

You think Marx was even more cunning than ideologically crazed, eh? Maybe. Safe bet his "muse" was.

[logos]

Dear friends - I've been following along as you have conversed about these "things" that ail us, as a society, as communities, as individuals. As much as I agree with much - if not all - that's been said, you've all left out the most important element if change is what we're to be after.

Each one of us has the ability to change the world in one way or another, even if only that small part of the world in which we walk. The kicker, though, is that we must begin that change within ourselves. Lately, I've been spending more time talking to people face-to-face than I've spent talking to good and true friends on FR. That way I can see in their eyes the impact of what they're suddenly thinking about for the first time.

The biggest change I've had to work on within myself is my natural inclination to walk away - or look away - when someone is acting "anti-social". I used to believe that people like that will pay "someday". Now I ask myself, "Why should we all wait for someday? Why not start the process with a down payment, and let them hear why their conduct is simply not acceptable?"

Some will undoubtedly say that such a public stance is a good way to get my ticket punched, so to speak, but there are ways to show one's disapproval without immediately instigating a physical confrontation.

One the other hand, I mentioned to someone just last week who was bewailing the perceived lack of direction of the Confessing Church Movement, that if it's a nest of rats that need killing, and you can't do it yourself, at least have the common sense to hire a rat killer. And then, insist that he kill every single rat - 'cause leaving even one will soon result in a new nest.

Anyway, let's not bemoan the direction of society at large until we have at least turned around ourselves. ;^)

[betty boop]

Safe bet his "muse" was.

Dig it, dude. :^)

[betty boop]

It's possible....

Sure is, Brother A. May God's Light shine on His sons everywhere, and His Grace permeate their being. In the Lord's Name: Which is TRUTH.

[Jorge]

The state of Texas went to all the trouble and expense of arresting, arraigning, and incarcerating these two, then went to the much greater trouble and expense of fighting their appeal through the court system all the way up to the US Supreme Court, all because "nobody wants this nonsense"?

The great majority of Americans do not want this nonsense....if you want to get nit-picky about it..yes there are a small minority who want the sex police busting down bedroom doors of adults and arresting them for things like adultery and homosexuality.

Thankfully these people are in a very small minority.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"Article IV, Section 1, paragraph 1"

Going back a few hundred posts back on this thread, you will find the following:

Despite the basic rule that a marriage valid where contracted is valid everywhere, the courts and validation statutes have universally recognized a number of exceptions, which may be condensed and simply stated as follows: A marriage valid where contracted will nevertheless not be recognized as valid in the forum state if such recognition would be contrary to a strong public policy of the forum state. Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws 283(2) comment f (1971) (marriage valid where contracted will be recognized as valid everywhere unless it violates the strong public policy of another state which has the most significant relationship to the spouses of the marriage); e.g., Fattibene v. Fattibene, 183 Conn. 433, 441 A.2d 3 (1981) (Connecticut need not recognize marriage that violates strong public policy of state); In re Estate of Loughmiller, 229 Kan. 584, 629 P.2d 156 (1981) (listing exceptions to validation statute, including marriage that is polygamous, incestuous, or prohibited by the state for public policy reason); K. v. K., 90 Misc. 2d 183, 393 N.Y.S.2d 534 (Fam. Ct. 1977) (court called upon to decide whether law of Poland, which requires civil ceremony in addition to religious ceremony, was repugnant to law of New York); Kelderhaus v. Kelderhaus, 21 Va. App. 721, 467 S.E.2d 303 (1996) (general statement that marriage's validity is to be determined by law of state where marriage took place, unless result would be repugnant to Virginia public policy).

There are three commonly recognized categories of marriages contracted in another state that will not be recognized in the forum state. First, marriages that are contracted by domiciliaries of the forum state in another state for the express purpose of evading the law of the forum state are deemed invalid. E.g., Loughran v. Loughran, 292 U.S. 216 (1934) (marriage entered into in Florida, in violation of D.C. prohibition against remarriage within certain amount of time after prior divorce, invalid in D.C.); Barbosa-Johnson v. Johnson, 174 Ariz. 567, 851 P.2d 866 (Ct. App. 1993) (appellate court holding that evidence did not sustain finding that parties had married in Puerto Rico for the purpose of evading the law of Arizona). See generally Uniform Marriage Evasion Act, 9 U.L.A. 480 (1942) (N.B.: The Uniform Marriage Evasion Act is superseded by the Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act, and was officially withdrawn from consideration by the drafters in 1943).

Second, states have refused to recognize marriages that are solemnized in sister states when the parties are of a level of sanguinity that is forbidden in the forum state. E.g., McMorrow v. Schweiker, 561 F. Supp. 584 (D.N.J. 1982) (rule recognizing foreign marriages does not apply to incestuous marriages); Catalano v. Catalano, 148 Conn. 288, 170 A.2d 726 (1961); In re May's Estate, 305 N.Y. 486, 114 N.E.2d 14 (1953).

Third, states have refused to recognize marriages that are solemnized in sister states when the parties are not deemed of sufficient age to marry, as determined in the forum state. E.g., Wilkins v. Zelchowski, 26 N.J. 370, 140 A.2d 65 (1958).

Given this strong tradition of a state's right to refuse to recognize a marriage validly contracted in another state if that marriage would offend the fundamental public policy of the state, there appears to be no reason for enactment of the Defense of Marriage Act. The states already have the ability to refuse to recognize a same-sex marriage should they so choose. A state's public policy regarding same-sex marriages may be adduced from the presence or absence of both statutory prohibitions and decisional authority regarding same-sex marriages. E.g., Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act 201, 9A U.L.A. 170 (1987) (defining marriage as a personal relationship between a man and a woman).

[Luis Gonzalez]

"If Massachusetts sanctions gay marriage, then a gay couple married here, moving to another state, could sue to have the legal status of their marriage recognized in their new state of domicile. What do you think the SCOTUS would do?

Amendment XI

The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another state, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign state.

Nothing, they have no jurisdiction.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"And can anyone else tell me why we think the hit-and-miss idea of "leaving it up to the states" is so good?

What do you think would happen if Roe v. Wade were overturned today, and States allowed to decide on whether or not to legalize abortion?

Before Roe v. Wade, there were an average of 98,000 illegal abortiong performed in the US yearly, look at the chart below and see the impact of the Federal government on abortion via Roe v. Wade:

• AGI:  Alan Guttmacher Institute Statistics (click here
  for details and documentation)
  
  CDC:  Center for Disease Control Statistics (click here for details and documentation)

Year	AGI	CDC
1973	744,600	615, 831
1974	898,600	763,476
1975	1,034,200	854,853
1976	1,179,300	988,267
1977	1,316,700	1,079,430
1978	1,409,600	1,157,776
1979	1,497,700	1,251,921
1980	1,553,900	1,297,606
1981	1,577,300	1,300,760
1982	1,573,900	1,303,980
1983	1,575,000	1,268,987
1984	1,577,200	1,333,521
1985	1,588,600	1,328,570
1986	1,574,000	1,328,112
1987	1,559,100	1,353,671
1988	1,590,800	1,371,285
1989	1,566,900	1,396,658
1990	1,608,600	1,429,577
1991	1,556,500	1,388,937
1992	1,528,900	1,359,145
1993	1,500,000	1,330,414
1994	1,431,000	1,267,415
1995	1,363,690	1,210,883
1996	1,365,730	1,221,585
1997	1,328,000	1,186,039
1998	* 1,328,000	§  884,273
1999	* 1,328,000	§  861,789
2000	1,313,300	861,789
2001	* 1,313,300	§  861,789
2002	* 1,313,300	§  861,789

[unspun]

Thanks for the estimates. Somehow, traveling for an abortion seems a bit more daunting than I'd guess traveling for a homophilliac "marriage" would be.

[unspun]

Don't be surprised if even this would be changed by liberal "justices."

[longtermmemmory]

there may be a time. That time is not now. That time will come only AFTER the democrat party is wiped from the political landscape. Then it is safe to have more assertive factions within the party.

Lets not forget some of these appointments were "compromises" from the word go. O'Connor was just as much politician to get her job as any other politician. She was a moderate then and a moderate now.

There is a pattern to the facilitators of evil.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank y'all so much for the heads up to all your wisdom!

[tdadams]

"...the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof."

I read that to mean that Congress may, by statute, make an exception to the "full faith and credit clause" in the case of recognition of gay marriage in non-gay marriage states.

This is almost certainly an erroneous interpretation. Under this rationale, the entire Full Faith and Credit Clause could be made moot.

I think the use of the word effect here is similar to it's use in the Fourth Amendment, meaning a fixed form. That's consistent with the antecedent words "Acts, Records and Proceedings", where it would be an abrupt departure to consider the word "effect" here to mean "cultural effect" or "results".

[betty boop]

Under this rationale, the entire Full Faith and Credit Clause could be made moot.

Perhaps you are right about this, tdadams. In all probability, the present SCOTUS would see it that way. (A good many of the sitting justices appear to be "doctrinal" rather than "dynamic" thinkers.)

But I was thinking of what the Framers were trying to do here. I don't believe they thought that, in the Constitution, they were laying down rigid, "one-size-fits-all" rules, done once and forevermore; for they knew that future circumstances were bound to change, and the foundational law of the land had to be flexible enough to adapt, within broad constitutional parameters.

They did say "Congress may by general Laws prescribe the manner...and the Effect...." Looks to me like the Framers did intend Congress to have some constitutional discretion here.

And don't forget, at the time Article IV was written, Congress was divided into the people's house (the Legislature) and the other house, which then represented state governments. (That all changed with the 17th Amendment, which caused the Senate to be elected popularly, rather than appointed by state legislatures.) So the several states were definitely directly part of the consultation on the "may", the "by general laws prescribe", and the "effect" -- at least at that time.

Thanks for writing and sharing your views.

[unspun]

And don't forget, at the time Article IV was written, Congress was divided into the people's house (the Legislature) and the other house, which then represented state governments. (That all changed with the 17th Amendment, which caused the Senate to be elected popularly, rather than appointed by state legislatures.) So the several states were definitely directly part of the consultation on the "may", the "by general laws prescribe", and the "effect" -- at least at that time.

Not to knit pick, but like forlorn wishes for an anachronistic interpretation of states rights (without regard for how we have to function as a People) it seems to me that many of us classic liberals see magical effects in a reversal of the 17th Amendment. Seems to me that if we returned to that, we would get even more party machine Senators than we have now (which was probably the reason for the 17th Amendment in the first place). I don't see how Illinois would have sent Senator Peter Fitzgerald to Washington under the old system! We don't need more money/patronage enabled party hacks in Congress; we need fewer.