Volume I (Intro): Isn't A Ban On Same-Sex Marriage A Constitutional Embarassment?

Ok. I must take this opportunity to apologize for my absence. Let's call my absence an "intellectual sabatical"..."time of political introspection"...or "a rhetorical retreat" from the conservative misinformation and imperial nature of what the Office of the United States President has unfortunately become during the W. Bush years. But...the Republican Party's resurrection of the constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage DID get my "liberal juices" flowing again. And...since every "hero" needs an "anti-hero"...and every proverbial "cure" needs a "disease," the extreme right-wing of the Republican Party (y'know...those folks running around with the "Religious Right" self-moniker) has provided this legislative fiat and political distraction as that "anti-hero."

W. stated that "our policies should aim to strengthen families, not undermine them...[and] changing the definition of marriage would undermine the family structure." This is rhetorical jujitsu ("the art of political misdirection") because it finds absolutely no evidential support that is founded in legal reasoning, research-based longitudinal studies, or any time-tested socio-political analyses. To not support equity-in-marriage rights for, and between, homoxuals and heterosexuals alike --- or to not support the fight against the 2nd-classing of gays and lesbians around the issue of equity-in-marriage rights --- is profane. Not allowing for equity-in-marriage rights for homosexuals and lesbians is unconstitutional: U.S. Constitution, Amendment XIV - "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Further...

· The Government Accountability Office (GAO)'s 1997 report identified 1,049 federal benefits, rights, or privileges that were contingent on marital status. In 2004, a revamped GAO report upped the number of federal effects to 1,138. They include tax breaks, pensions and Social Security benefits, inheritance rights and loans, immigration and citizenship status, hospital visitation and medical decision-making rights, next-of-kin transferable property rights w/o adverse tax treatment, adoption and parental rights of guardianship, rules for ending a relationship while protecting both parties (ie divorce), etc. These proposed federal and enacted state bans "abridge [at least 1,138 federal] privileges and immunities of the citizens of the United States." This is unconstitutional due to its backwards inconsistency with the 14th Amendment.

· Article III, Section I of the Constitution establishes the Supreme Court and subordinate federal and appellate courts. It also enumerates (while not limiting) the areas of jurisdictional review regarding the types of cases that these Courts may hear. Any cases involving rights that are conferred by the Constitution may be heard, reviewed, or ruled upon ("writ of certiorari" when the Supreme Court wants to impose its right of review) by these federal-level courts. The proposed Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA) says that "no court of the United States or any state shall have jurisdiction to determine whether this Constitution or the constitution of any state requires that the legal incidents of marriage be conferred." FMA would have stripped the Supreme Court and all federal courts of hearing any challenges. FMA, on its face and in an overt manner, deprives gays and lesbians of their access to federal courts, thereby unconstitutionally depriving a discrete minority of basic access to government. The Supreme Court has ruled that "a law declaring that in general it shall be more difficult for one group of citizens than for all others to seek aid from the government is itself a denial of the equal protection of the laws in the most literal sense and is unconstitutional because of its peculiar property of imposing a broad and undifferentiated disability on a single named group." (Romer v Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996)). Basic due process demands an independent judicial forum capable of determining federal constitutional rights. FMA (as well as the Defense of Marrage Act) forces gay citizens out of federal courts, which are uniquely suited for the vindication of federal interests, and into state courts that lack the federal expertise and independent safeguards provided to federal judges under Article III.

blog progressively &
advocate radically,
LeftAngst