« The Chelan County Hearing Transcripts, Part One: Morning Session | Main | Goodbye, Hunter »

February 20, 2005



I hear initially they were worried about a missing 18-minute section of the tape that was just silence...but after analysis it was revealed to have been Bush thinking about the question.



If you believe George has ever given a question over thirty seconds of thought before diving headlong into his own certain position, well then, you haven't been paying as close attention to him as I thought you were.

north clark county

That's quite a charge you make about James Dobson wanting to "deny them basic civil rights". Got any support for that statement?


you don't consider the right to choose an adult human life partner and be recognized by the state for having done so like anyone else, a civil right? The federal government already denies them hundreds of fairly basic civil rights that I believe you would take for granted--visitation, burial, power of attorney, custody, adoption, inheritance, even the simple right to enter into a contract of any kind with another gay person. I don't think there's any doubt that Dobson would approve of Virgina's bills that make gays essentially minors in the view of the law.

north clark county

"you don't consider the right to choose an adult human life partner and be recognized by the state for having done so like anyone else, a civil right?"



The Supreme Court would appear to have strongly disagreed with you, writing in 1967:

The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.

(Loving v Virginia)

north clark county

The Supreme Court also said:
"The question before us is, whether the class of persons described in the plea in abatement [people of Aftican ancestry] compose a portion of this people, and are constituent members of this sovereignty? We think they are not, and that they are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word "citizens" in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States."


yes, as a predecessor statute firmly struck a mortal blow to an already wounded ideology, by Loving.

I don't think it's much of an argument to say the Court is wrong by virtue of having been wrong once before--especially where the current view is the broader libertarian viewpoint (as opposed to the narrower one, as your cite was). The Constitution's entire premise is the presumption of individual rights and liberty, placing burden on the government to justify their intrusion on a case by case basis. The one question I can never seem to get answered is: what is the solid, empirical rationale that compels government intrusion?

north clark county

I'll think on that question, but here's one for you.

By what rationale does the government involve itself in "marriage", that is the granting (or withholding) the franchise of being married?


That, I confess, I fall short of explaining--which is why my solution to the problem would be to eliminate altogether the notion of a "civil marriage" recognition by states or the feds, and then to administer benefits to those religiously married, on an equal basis.

I do think the government has a compelling interest in promoting marriage via benefits and tax relief, but the job of recognizing who shall be married is much less firm IMO.

north clark county

"A progressive-conservative meeting of the political minds."

Based on your prior pose, we might be getting close on this issue. I haven't fully come to my own mind on this yet, but what you suggest seems to be a good place to start.

The comments to this entry are closed.

April 2006

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29


Blog powered by Typepad