Friday, January 23, 2004


Well, that was quick reading. As I suspected, the gist:

"No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship."

"If you're gay and got married in Hawaii, fuck you. Sincerely, Ohio."

Definition of 'marriage' and 'spouse'

"In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife."

Above self explanatory. And I guess this could be interpreted under the umbrella of the tenth amendment...

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

...would it not be for the inconvenience of the first:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Specifically, the marriage/union of a man/woman could be considered a codification of religious practice (though marriage as a practice precedes our current known religions, but that's a whole other point). And if one uses the following definition of religion as a basis...

"a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith"

...then I argue that DOMA could be a violation of those who hold a marriage between a man and a man to be part of their established system of beliefs held with ardor or faith. Thus, to confine marriage to a man and a woman is a violation of the 1st amendment, because that law violates their rights respecting an establishment of their religion.

Turn it on it's head, you see? Am I crazy? Probably not. I'm sure it's been thought of by many others more astute than I am. And I can hear Scalia sniping now: but that was not the "original intent" of the framers. Neither was term limits, so you can shove THAT up your ass!

No comments:

Watch this space

If FB decides to reinstate the account of the former "president" tomorrow, I expect an uptick of activity here for random updates ...