On Wednesday, March 1st, 2006, in Annapolis
at a hearing on the proposed Constitutional
Amendment to prohibit gay marriage, Jamie
Raskin, professor of law at AU, was requested
to testify.
At the end of his testimony, Republican Senator
Nancy Jacobs said: "Mr. Raskin, my Bible says
marriage is only between a man and a woman.
What do you have to say about that?"
Raskin replied: "Senator, when you took your
oath of office, you placed your hand on the Bible
and swore to uphold the Constitution. You did
not place your hand on the Constitution and
swear to uphold the Bible."
The room erupted into applause.
|
|
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 118
Stash,
I know! I always think of the perfect put-down about 24 hours later!
Of course, the necessary separation of church and state would then require that "marriages", per se, have no legal standing. The government would only recognize civil unions, of which marriage could be made a type, and those unions would then be a viable, legal option for every citizen of this country.
Easy! So, what do we think the chances are of the Bush administration going for that?...
Marriage is a religious union which is completely separate from the civil contract that government recognizes.
I have no difficulty distinguishing between the two authorities of church and state, but I'm not a Republican running for office, so my thoughts are clean.
I have often thought the same thing. Let the churches have their religious ceremonies. The ones that are important are the civil ceremonies, because they provide the criteria for important issues like child custody, tax status and inheritance.
Bush and the Religious Right have hijacked this issue. They recognize that if civil ceremonies were legal for same-sex couples, then the marriage issue becomes moot...who cares about the religious ceremony. I think the proponents of same sex marriage have missed an opportunity here by not emphasizing the distinction between the two types of ceremonies.
By pushing for gay "marriage" and not gay "civil ceremony" they have allowed the gay-bashers to appeal to the populace on "moral" and religious grounds. If they had pushed for legalization of civil ceremonies, I think many who currently oppose gay marriage would not have opposed it.
Of course it didn't help when our fearless president said that gay marriage "threatened the instutition of marriage." I have yet to understand how marriage is threatened. If my wife and I are devout Christians, living a totally righteous life, how is the sanctity of our marriage threatened by a gay couple living next door?
This is so f*****g obvious to me! I can't understand why we couldn't get this message out to Joe and Jane Sixpack. I think they would "get it" if it were presented that way.
L.
Yeah, it's a small victory in a never-ending war. These people never give up because they "know" they are right and they know what's best for each of us...whether we agree or not.
The response that Raskin gave is a true gem...
For instance, Vice Presidential candidate Lloyd Bentsen's famous debate put-down of Dan Quayle ("Senator, I knew John Kennedy and you're no John Kennedy" or something like that) was planned in advance, not thought up by Lloyd-on-the-Spot.
Just an aside. It doesn't detract from the remark's power in any way. Politics is a game of ambush and counter-ambush, is all...
That forces the government into the position of declaring that "marriage" is either a religious entity (in which case there must be an alternative for ALL non-religious people) or a purely legal entity, in which case it must be available to every citizen of the country (except, of course, those being held anonomously as 'enemy combatants' in secret prisons...)
Donald, I agree with your commentary, though I have an issue with your your premise that the roots of marriage are religious. From my understanding, marriage was purely an economic consideration and revolved around the transfer and inheritence of wealth and production of heirs. It was then co-opted by a realatively modern idea that marriage and love are synonomous and then the church put in its ten cents worth. Of course, we must remember that arranged marriages in parts of the world and thiose are arrangedc not for love but wedalth and security, etc.
Anyway, that's my two cents worth
I agree that Raskin must have had that one "locked and loaded" ready to fire. Either that or he is as fast on his feet as...uh...Bill Clinton? I used to marvel at Clinton in the "town hall" things that he did when he was campaigning...allowing people to ask him any question they wanted to. I guess I don't know that those things weren't staged, but I never read anything that suggested that they were. He was just marvelous in reponding to and relating to people. The best I have ever seen. Sort of the polar opposite of Bush who can't even read his canned speeches convincingly.
Our daughter was married in a courthouse. Suzanne and I were the only witnesses, other than the court clerk who was duly licensed to perform marriage ceremonies. As far as I could determine, that was a purely civil ceremony. Church pastors must also be licensed to perform civil marriage ceremonies in order for the marriage to be legally binding.
I like your idea of separating the civil and religious ceremonies, but I think that separation already exists, at least theoretically, for everyone.
That's why I said in an earlier comment that supporters of same-sex marriage missed an opportunity to gain support by pushing for "marriage" instead of "civil unions."
So far as I can tell, the only significant opposition to gay marraige comes from people who are opposed to the gay lifestyle - or - people whose religion states that being gay is a sin.
I have no issue with religions wanting to have control over who's in their 'club', but they should not be able to force their discriminatory practices on the population at large. And it is the government's job to protect us from exactly these types of occurences.
Agree totally.
Donald, can I talk you into running for office?
I was thinking the same thing about Donald. We desperately need some people in government that think like he does.
Regarding marriage—the institution of marriage has evolved over the years, depending on the use of marriage in the culture. In the past, royal women were the bargaining pawns for monarchs to consolidate, grow or ensure their kingdoms and to produce an heir. Common people fulfilled their role in life by marrying to produce as many children as they could. People were needed to ensure enough workers and soldiers to make up for those dying of disease or in war.
But we're in a new era when commitment of partners to each other in marriage or civil unions is voluntary and is a commitment of love, not just convenience. Our idea of marriage must change. And how can anyone of good will object to a same-sex marriage if it increases love and commitment in the world?
Thank you, Jamie Raskin. Thanks, Bert, for informing us of Raskin's wit and courage.
Nice to hear from you! Thanks for your comments.
Sounds like a good word to me, and it certainly describes the "disease."
I dunno if it's insecurity. I think it will be very hard to change their mind about their "values" agenda. I am afraid that whoever follows Bush (McCain?) wil pander to the same primitive beliefs and win easily.
I am no expert on this, so correct me if I am wrong. Marriage has long been a legally binding ceremony, even though it has always(?) been performed in churches.
But civil unions...i.e., ceremonies performed outside churches have been legally binding for a long time. My point is that same-sex marriage proponents should have clearly distinguished between the two and pushed for legalizing civil ceremonies...not even used the emotionally-loaded dreaded "M" word. I think if that had been the approach, a lot more people would have said, "what's wrong with that?" There would still have been the extreme fundamentalists who want all gays to go straight to Hell, not pass Go and not collect $200. I say to Hell with them! There are a lot of other Christians who are not that intolerant.
That's because they think it will win them public approval. They're from that part of the country where misconceptions about sexuality and male and female roles are deeply imprinted.
And another one of your commenters, Damian McNicholl, found the only entirely constitutional issue that SHOULD be advanced as the interpretation turning point in the argument: "From my understanding, marriage was purely an economic consideration and revolved around the transfer and inheritence of wealth and production of heirs."
Here's how it relates, follow my logic: America is a market economy where the right to attain, hold, and transfer wealth to whomever you choose is written into the common law. You can put the transfer in writing, imply a contract through actions, or express an oral agreement that comes under slightly different rules but still holds up under contract law. Marriage is a contract. This type of contract is recognized currently under common law. In real estate, an agent cannot discriminate against a buyer on the basis of race, religion etc., discrimination against individuals who are able perform under the terms of the contract is negatively viewed in contract law.
That was a mouthful, now let's go on to producing heirs: That is not a mandatory requirement of the marriage contract. If it was then childless heterosexual couples would have not recourse for claiming property upon the death of the spouse (regardless of the particulars of property laws of the state they live in). If the 'acceptable heir' is, formed by the contract, to be the spouse then the child/heir argument is further weakened.
Now here's the death nell for the Right's incessant lurking in muddy waters:
1) "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion (First Amendment)" They kill their own cause by establishing marriage issues are religious rites and subject to Bible/denominational interpretation. They have no other argument to offer why they believe love between two people could be wrong. Gay people should promote their unions as religious/spiritual unions and therefore out of Constitutional control.
2) "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people (Ninth Amendment)." Just because the word's 'gay marriage' are not verbose in the Constitution, it doesn't mean gays wanting to marry should not have this right.
3) The Constitution of the United States is based on Common Law. Our Common Law. What is considered accepted by society. "The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for, among old parchments, or musty records. They are writen, as with a sun beam in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of the fivinity itself; and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power (Alexander Hamilton, 1775)."
If love and the different ways to express love are not of human nature and therefore a sign of the hand of divinity, then I'm an alien from an alternate universe trapped in a warped nightmare. I look at some of the people that have been choses to represent my interests for "domestic tranquility", and "general welfare", and I say "beam me up, Scotty!"
Run with it, Bert, everyone. Tell 'em straight up! Don't Mess With My Constitution!!
You have given me much to think about. I need to re-read your comment about four more times to make sure I understand it. Thanks for giving a new and richer perspective on this issue.
The only reason to participate here is to learn. If I just posted my articles and went away, I could maybe get an ego trip out of it, but I ain't gonna learn anything listening to myself.
By the way, why not dispense with the Bible altogether when swearing to uphold the Constitution?
Why not dispense with the Bible altogether in secular matters...like courtrooms and other public ceremonies.
If you want privileges for civil unions, then you have to define what a civil union is. Why limit it to 2 people? Why limit it to people who aren't closely related? Why give privileges to people who choose to perform a civil union rather than those who don't?
I don't think of the rights and obligations that people obtain through marriage...or civil union...as "priviliges." Our society recognizes these unions as a way of formalizing the mating ritual in order to define property ownership and to ensure a support method for any children that result from it. There are other issues...taxes, child custody, survivor benerits... but it seems to me that "legitimizing" the children and determing property ownership are the main purposes of the institution of marriage
But you are absolutely right...the whole thing could be handled by civil contract.
IF the government recognizes marriage as the reason for needing tax breaks, family health coverage and other incentives AND people are denied the right to marry THEN there is no reason for those incentives at all. SO, If the government continues to recognize marriage for some but not for others they are taxing people and prohibiting health coverage based on their sexual preferences. Show me THAT in the constitution! As I recall, the constitution specifically states, in several amendments, that the respective rights shall not be denied on the basis of race and color, age, and even on the basis of sex (Amendment XIX). Discrimination law based on our societal norms now for diversity and written into our common laws, carries the argument for interpreting any race, color, age, sex limitation as violating not only common law precedents but also the spirit of constitutional precedent.
FINALLY - In my (and Kant's) estimation -- to deny gays the right to marriage but not others in UNETHICAL, not in the best interest of the greater good and therefore irrational (Please, check out my article "Decision Making Biases and Traps - Part I").
(you gotta remember, tax breaks and even deficits in economics are supposed to cause positive marginal changes in the economy according to specific indicators - they also make great stump speeches - politician's need them).
Thanks, Bert. I like to get feedback too. I put some of these ideas out there because my experience has told me I have small pieces of the answers but I'm just a student of thought and I need others' input to help me find my lapses in consideration. I'm also precocious. I like to see people expand their considerations by including mine. I also enjoy people telling me straight up they disagree with me because it makes me consider even more!
As I said in an earlier post, the reason I participate here on Gather is to learn from others, to hear different ideas and perspectives. Your contributions to this thread are a clear example of why I am here. Thank you.
"I really don't think that Joe and Jill six pack really care, deep down. BUT they feel as their importance is being diminished by the state, feds and all the special interests the easiest thing to do is join the tried and true old standby the Church. What we really need in America is an winning openly gay Nascar driver!
The response that Raskin gave is a true gem..."
I think there's a point to consider here that is pretty important, and is given short-shrift by Bruce's entry above.
Let me try to break it down. (By the way, I don't mean to sound like the one authoritative source on this. I'm mot).
I think people embrace "faith" and "values" based on two sets of reasoning:
1) Concern for what is happening on Earth for themselves,others, and those that will come after them.
2) Concern for following a Religious code that is Godly and will affect them in the afterlife, second coming, heaven / hell, whatever.
Either concern listed above may or may not be based on using the Bible in one form or another as a guide. Each person may have any number of reasons to have certain beliefs or moral strictures.
I would go further to say that in some ways, these belief systems seem to be the nature of the human condition. The attraction and benefits that some people gain from having these believes yields, when measured by the individual person who holds a particular belief, enormous value.
Before I go on, I hope no one is misinterpreting me to think I'm trying to make a defense of fundumentalism. That's not my point at all.
My point, without going in to much more discussion, is that expressing the idea that solution to working through this as a society is about more gay NASCAR drivers, is insulting to the individuals who have deep concerns with what they believe are legitimate reasons. Overall, also, the NASCAR remark does enormous dis-service toward recognizing the complexity of religious and civil marriage issues, concerns, and the role of the State.
By the way, for what it's worth, I'm an atheist.
This is an intolerant and ignorant statement - because it excludes anyone who doesn't share your beliefs. You don't see that?
Thanks for your comments. I was hoping we would get some opposing views, but I believe you are the first to offer any.
I question your statement that the Bible is "the constitution of the human race." There are thousands of religions practiced on this earth. Except for practicing Christians, most of the rest have never seen a Bible and have no idea of its contents. Notice that I said "practicing" Christians, because there are a lot of Christians that I know personally who know very little about the Bible. They comprise a sizeable part of the population, I would surmise...people who would identify themselves as Christians, but don't go to church or pray regularly. Nor do they read the Bible.
Frankly, your view that the Bible has primacy over the Constitution is frightening to me. Fortunately, I think that view is not shared by most Americans. That could only be described, in my view as religious tyranny. We are not a "Christian nation." There are many people in this country, including me, who are not Christian and have no desire to have our lives dicatated by Christian dogma.
Kranky, the bible is not the constitution of the human race, and I'm glad it is not. It is inspired, but not perfect, and was written with the prejudice and understanding of the time. divine or otherwise, it is wrong to legislate religion.
We need to separate the constitution from those who would hijack it for religious purposes.
the document that most influenced American colonists to take the
stand for independence from Britain in 1776. The American Quaker
leadership council urged compromise with the kingdom. Paine's
reply is a classic. Paine concluded with the following words:
"May ye always, as men and Christians, fully and uninterruptedly
enjoy every civil and religious right; and be, in your turn, the means
of securing it to others; but that the example which ye have unwisely
set, of mingling religion with politics, may be disavowed and reprabated
by every inhabitant of America."
Thanks for that Paine quote. I have made it a little hobby to collect statements by the founders of our country on the issue of religion, and its role in government. I will add this beauty to my collection. I even posted an article on this subject a few months ago.
Here is the link.
Oh, yeah. Very good collection.
Probably shouldn't go on, but here's another
Thomas Paine too good to throw away,
"...bribery, corruption, and favoritism are
the standing vices of kings."
Thomas Paine (1737 - 1809)
Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half the bible is filled, it would seem more consistent that we called it the word of a demon than the Word of God. It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind.
Thomas Paine (1737 - 1809)
Donald I like how you said:
The 'gay marriage' issue is one that I've always thought would be so easy to solve: Let's just recognize that marriage is a religious ceremony/institution. That's where it's roots lie, and by doing that we allow each religion to set its own standards of what "marriage" is. All the religious right -wingers will be satisfied, because their individual churches could decide who has the right to get married.
Of course, the necessary separation of church and state would then require that "marriages", per se, have no legal standing. The government would only recognize civil unions, of which marriage could be made a type, and those unions would then be a viable, legal option for every citizen of this country.
Easy! So, what do we think the chances are of the Bush administration going for that?...
You mean like King George the Second from Texas?
Anita,
That's waaaay too logical! No chance.
That Tom Paine was a real firebrand, wasn't he? I think I would have enjoyed knowing him.
I can't get too upset over the right wing's attachment to this nonsense. It is clearly indefensible legally, historically and constitutionally. So the motive by default is a convienent political smokescreen to rally the troops and deflect investigaion into legitimate issues. It serves the same purpose in the religious community. It's a lot easier to stand on a street corner screaming at gays and abortion clinics than to "take the log from your own eye before taking the mote from your brothers" or "not all who call me 'Lord, Lord' will enter the kingdom of heaven" or "it is easier for a camel to pass thru the eye of a needle than a rich man enter the kingdom of heaven" or "he who is without sin, cast the first stone."
ES: Since you mention it, the similarities are striking.
Hey, Thomas Paine's talent was to knock royalty in
general and specific. He found two flaws in the
idea of a genetic line. First, we occasionally have
a minor in charge, and at the mercy of his or her
handlers. Next, a feeble minded monarch develops
from time to time; that's genetics.
What? You say, gulity on both counts?
Well, I would say he is probably old enough to be excused from the "minor" part...unless you mean his intellectual level and command of the language...
Sam, I agree it is clearly indefensible legally, historically, and constitutionally, but don't agree that it's nothing to get too upset over. Laws, the constitution, and history do not seem to apply any more. Several years ago, I suffered a barage of "you're paranoid - that could never happen here - we have a constitution and laws". And in a few short years, each of my concerns that prompted those responses have come to pass, at least to some degree (and growing). I believe this issues is something we need to be very upset over, especially now that Scalia looks like the liberal of the group.
I can't wait to read more!
Stick around...there are some really good people that comment on my articles...and everybody else's. If you interested in religion/state issues, check out the rest of my pieces on this subject.
Here is a link to my home page and a list of articles.
like separation church/state to the fore. Democracy is slow to respond to attacks(had our system examined the candidates more closely before election, perhaps this and a number of other crisis my have been avoided). Now the damage is down NEW policys are replacing the old, such as diplomacy and looking for
help outside the whiter house. Meanwhile we are facing another generation of cynical children. It's time to put away the greed and narcicissm baby boomers and think of the kids and grand kids.
Thanks for allowiong me to post.
We should pray to god that there is still love.we need love not war.
"Stick around...there are some really good people that comment on my articles...and everybody else's"
You probably didn't have me in mind...but you did an admirable job of conveying some very good thoughts in a rather respectful way. Good article.
I enjoy exchanging views with you most of the time. It is only when you launch personal attacks that I find your presence unwelcome. Stick to attacking my ideas, and we will get along fine.
The comment by Raskin was great.
Marriage was around long before religion. The women forced it on the men. The old notion of the cave man dragging around the cave-woman by the hair was developed by woman to boost the egos of their men. "You made this baby you will stay home and take care of it." Was the first full sentence spoken by a human. This was not translated from the wall of a cave. It is implied by practical matters based on anatomy. We are such ill-equipped predators the human race would surely have died out if the male had no responsibility for the care of the infant. If the male had been allowed to wander around aimlessly and take food to any woman that cought his eye. Well you know where I'm going. At times in the past multiple wives were the norm. Based on our understanding of the assembly line It's better to have several women pregnant at one time than to have only one. Well that is if you want the population to grow fast.
So to factually say that marriage is religious or secular is impossible. It also is essential that we trace the Origin of the word clear back to the first written record. Not really worth it. (Is it). It is worthwhile to note that in all ceremonies civil or religious other words are used to describe what the official is doing. " bla bla bal "to join" bla bla bla "union". Don't forget about common law marriages. Living together for a length of time automatically give the benefits of marriage. So there seems to be some basis in common law the marriage can exist without any religious indoctrination or official act by the courts. Case closed.
Since my entire argument is based upon the assumption that marriage is a practical matter and not religious. I will concede that it is either one or both.
Okay since this is a post about our govenments inability to cope with Gay marriage and the only difference between gay marriage and other marriage is the sex. We must discuss it. (Discuss what?) Sex. (oh crap)
At times gay was accepted as perfectly normal. At times Gay couples were sent into battle together because they would fight harder to keep their partner alive than they would to keep a stranger alive.
.
Over the eons kings and heads of states have adjusted the function of marriage to suit their needs. And these adjustments have included what was considered "normal behavior" in a marriage. Men were encouraged to have many wives and as many children as they could. Women were generally not encouraged to have more than one husband. This also was a practical matter. Men don't usually want to wait their turn. What good are a bunch of husbands that fight each other all the time? In some Old World nations men who were married were expected to have a gay lover also. This was also a practical matter. If the married man was occupied with his male friend he was not producing children with an unmarried woman. In some old societies it was encouraged. In one old society there were Gay marriages with all the pomp and pagentry that rival the finest wedding to date.
When did gay become taboo? There is no definite answer but in the Old World many good men chose not to take wives and therefore there were no children. They weren't rocket scientists but they did figure out that they couldn't keep the army strong if the children weren't being born. This was another practical matter.
There was a tribe where the rules were very clear. When boys entered puberty they were expected to be homosexual. They grew older and were then partnered with a woman and had offspring. After the birth of their children they were expected to be bisexual. So during the life of each one they passed through each phase of sexuality.
What matters here is that each society has defined what was acceptable and what was not. Our constitution has clearly stated that those right that are not spelled out in black and white "are reserved to the sates or to the people." The first and most fundamental reason to prevent a constitutional amendment on marriage is that it is a blatant and willful abuse of the constitution. The constitution limits the power of the government it is not essential that each right be written out.
On the bible thing. I take the AA approach. We all have a need to know there is a Higher Power HP (not Hewlett Packard). So anywhere god is mentioned or the bible. If you substitute HP (higher Power) you can see if the thing stands up to the test. It matters not if it is Christ Buddha Allah or Elvis Presley. The issue is the person giving the oath, is affirming on the highest authority they believe in.
Apparently most of our government has forgotten that even though they place their hand on the bible and swear. The pages of the bible they swear uppon must be blank.
Are you serious about the blank pages? I never knew that. Even so, I think a copy of the Constitution would be a better choice for the highest authority to swear upon.
We could see if they will pass that as an ammendment though. just kidding.
But I think my idea is better. Let them swear their oath on the Constitution of the United States.
Thank you for posting here. I am fully aware of the passages in the bible that say that gays should be put to death. Also, unbelievers. To me, this is sufficient evidence that the bible is an ancient piece of literature that has little to do with modern life.
Now...to the issue that our country was founded on the bible: My goodness, where did you ever get such an idea? The founders of our country went to great lengths to insure that we have a secular government, one that does not promote any religion.
I could give you many references that absolutely substantiate that statement.
Here is a link to an article I wrote some time ago that contains statements by people like Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams and Thomas Paine.
Of course the Constitution itself makes it clear also.
The Pledge of Allegiance was written in 1892, more than a hundred years after our nation was founded, and the original version did not contain the words "under God." They were added in 1954 at the height of the anti-communist fervor in this country. Many people think they should have been removed long ago.
If you would like to know more about the controversy surrounding those two words, you might find THIS interesting.
You have access to the Internet. There is a wealth of information at your fingertips. But I must warn you...when you read these things, you will find that they contradict what you have been told about the religious origins of our country.
And finally, I must say this: It is people like you that I fear the most...more even than Terrorists. I think you represent a greater threat to the future of our nation.
Why? Because you represent a threat to two founding principles of our nation...religious freedom and tolerance. Just imagine for a moment that you are a Buddhist or a Hindu or a Muslim. We have millions of each in this country...citizens just like you. How would you feel if someone said the nation was founded on the Bible? Shouldn't citizens who practice other religions have equal status in this country?
Think about it. Please.
So...do you accept this? Would you vote for a law that puts all gays and lesbians to death?
Fortunately, regardless of your answer, most mainline Christians favor equal rights for gays and lesbians, so I think there is little danger from fundamentalists who read things like the above and believe them literally. I guess I should thank God for that.
Great post Bert, now I have to go back and read all the controversial comments.
I thank all of you for the pleasure of reading them.
I love Bert's articles, he knows how to draw a crowd.
I am always floored by the comments from the religious people. It seems to be impossible for them to grasp the idea that some of us live fine, happy, lives with no god or bible directing us.
The problem is that many of them feel that they know what's best for us, and are aggressively seeking to impose their beliefs on us if they can...all with the best of intentions, of course!
It is scary, especially when you notice the details of their own lives.
You never answered my earlier question: It is clear that you follow the literal teachings of Mosaic Law which state that all homosexuals should be put to death. Would you favor such a law in our country?
LOL: what a freakin joke. Get bent and keep your jebus to yourself.
Judah...I need to ask you this: In the quote from Leviticus that I included in an earlier comment, it says "...and they shall surely be put to death." Does this mean that God will put them to death, or is He suggesting that believers should do the "putting?" If God will "surely" do this, then I must ask you why so many gay people live normal, happy lives and die of apparently natural causes. Is God not doing his job? That's why I asked you if you would favor a law to impose a death penalty on gays, because it appears that God is not punishing them. Our society is...by not giving them the rights that other citizens enjoy like marriage, but I see no evidence of God's wrath descending upon them.