Having a gay old time?
I see this as a possible Pyrrich victory. Personally, I like the ruling. However, it will give ammo to the FMA (see Malone, no adjectives, as much as I wanted to go with "hateful," "stupid," "un-American" or "dummy-headed," I didn't). Because OK now has to recognize adoptions by same-sex couples from other states and countries, it directly hits the big concern for FMA, namely that one state will have to recognize a "gay" marriage from another state. If I was a FMAer use the OK ruling as an arguement to support the need for the FMA.
Posts
4 comments:
I thought you were a supporter of state's rights? Perhaps I've confused you with someone else.
I can't tell if your comment should hurt my feelings. As I've said again, and again, and again, one of the reasons I oppose the FMA is that it completely eviscerates states rights when it comes to recognizing gay marriages. Upon passage, for example, the will of the Massachussetts people is trumped.
So either you don't pay attention to my points, or you just debate an imaginary person where you assume their issues. Neither make me feel very special.
This one of the key areas where we differ. Me: don't trust politicians, small government individualist. You: trust politicians to save us, big government social engineer. This is why I fully get that you're part of the three in ten Americans who support W.
Since you missed the gist of the question I'll try again.
The ruling was by a federal judge who is imposing his personal opinions by erasing a law passed by a state (see graphic novel for illustrations). He says the state law didn't consider a parent's fitness or the a child's best interest, but those are clearly his own opinions. However, since he sits an a bigger throne, he gets to impose those on the people of OK.
So, in this instance the federal government is pushing the state around and you like the ruling.
Tell me again about how I'm a big government social engineer and you aren't.
Ooooh, I think I do see part of the problem, and it's my fault. Sloppy writing (I write most of these posts in a hurry, between things, or on the way to something else-there I said it, not every post gets my undivided attention). When I said "personally I like the ruling" and you did interpret that correctly, what I meant was that I politically I like that these folks can't have their family ripped asunder by people outside their family-in other words, I like that the family gets to stay a family. I should have put in a discliamer to that affect. However, I'm no where near trained enough in law to determine if the "ruling" is valid as it relates to "due-process under the constitution." The judge could be right, could be wrong. Just as you don't know for sure if it's opinion or fact as you too are not an expert in this area.
As far as big/small, I'm a constitutionalist. The document clearly sets forth times when the Feds trump the States, to be a "pure" states rights person is to act counter to the USC. It also has three sets of decision makers, the Legal, the Legislative, and the Executive. The system was set up for judges to be able to enforce consititional constraints on laws passed by the Legislative, and enforcement enacted by the Executive. It also has a system set up to appeal rulings. If this guy legitimately believes that this law violates a constituional provision, his ruling is valid under the rules of the land. THATS what I look for.
Philosophically, the USC says the Feds can take any power they want and the States have the rest, so I seek to limit Fed expansion, and, indeed erode it when I can. But the law's the law. I do think the Feds are in a period of expansion, and worry much, much more about this than judges.
Post a Comment