John Kerry, John Edwards, George Bush, Ralph Nader and most candidates evade issues on same-sex marriage, civil union and traditional marriage leading to the Quantum Theory of Marriage.

Feb. 22, 2004 : PoliSat .Com's Political Satire/ Commentary* Daily Update # 01·· ™©·2004·(Home)·
*Where the satire is always commentary, but the commentary isn't always satire (but you'll know the difference)·
(Permanent, direct link to this Daily Update: http://polisat.com/du2004/du040229.htm#20040222-01.)
(Keep abreast of PoliSat.Com's Daily Political Satire/Commentary via Google's News Alert).

John Kerry, John Edwards, George Bush, Ralph Nader and most candidates evade issues on same-sex marriage, civil union and traditional marriage leading to the Quantum Theory of Marriage. ·

The U.S. Constitution's guarantee of Equal Protection prohibits arbitrary classification of people¹ as grounds for limiting their liberty or eligibility for privileges. In the abstract, a rational basis for a classification precludes its being deemed "arbitrary." However, the historically demonstrated tendency of majorities wielding power to classify minorities in ways to limit their liberty and/or eligibility for privileges in ways inimical to the principle of equality theocratically asserted in the Declaration of Independence and secularly guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution justified, if not required, the U.S. Supreme Court to view as "suspect" otherwise rational classifications readily susceptible to such misuse.

Judicial and political evolution of our perception of classification of people according to sex has rightly led to such classification being presumed to be incompatible with the Equal Protection guarantee and, therefore, unconstitutionally "arbitrary" absent societal and/or governmental interests compatible with, and/or necessary for, promoting, protecting or preserving other Constitutional principles, prerogatives or obligations. Thus, proponents of such "suspect" classifications have the burden to establish a sufficient governmental or societal purpose justifying such classification in a manner not offending the Equal Protection guarantee.

Evolution of differing judicial, legislative and political views on what should be the methodology for interpreting the constitution has produced at least two distinctly different schools of thought. One school of constitutional thought advocates judicial interpretation of the Constitution according to the "original intent" existing at the time of its adoption. An opposing school of thought advocates judicial interpretation of the original intent as having been originally intended to be "elastic" to enable the judiciary to adapt interpretations of abstract intent to conform to evolution of societal understandings and expectations about such intent with respect to new, evolving, or unforeseen circumstances.

Although strict adherence to "original intent" would minimize the risks of the tyranny of an unbridled judiciary, it would nevertheless lead to too many instances in which constitutional amendments would be necessary to specify modern applicability of unforeseen, specific manifestations of rights or duties with reference to which reasonable people could disagree regarding whether they should be deemed within, or without, the abstract concept of original intent. Strict adherence to "elastic intent" maximizes the risks of judicial tyranny but relies upon the assumption that manifestations of such tyranny will foment support for amendments to the Constitution to counter them.

The wisest school of thought advocates adherence to "original intent" unless, and until, compelling reasons exist for following the second school of thought, of which Brown v. Board of Education is an example Construing semi-automatic rifles, but not bazookas, as "arms" (despite the fact that at the time of original intent, "arms" that could be borne by a person had not evolved beyond single-shot flintlocks) is another example of "elastic" intent.

Whether governmental licensing of "marriage" only between a man and a woman should be deemed a denial of "equal protection" to men desiring to marry men, women desiring to marry women, men desiring to have multiple wives, women desiring to have multiple husbands, groups of men and women desiring to collectively marry each other, brothers marrying sisters, sisters marrying brothers, brothers marrying brothers, sisters marrying sisters, parents marrying children, adults marrying minors, minors marrying minors, hermaphrodites marrying hermaphrodites, or hermaphrodites marrying men or women is the kind of decision that ought to be made in accordance with the "original intent" theory rather than the "elastic intent" theory. Such concepts were alien to the Framers. English common law, which the Constitution explicitly preserved, condemned bigamy; therefore, one could not rationally contend the "original intent" of equality (later codified in the Fourteenth Amendment) contemplated "marriage" between two people of the same sex..

Determining what type of family structure is best suited for producing and nurturing future generations and thereby deserves special recognition and/or protection is the kind of broad, fundamental "general welfare" determination society is entitled to make on a rational basis without being held hostage to a slavishly literal interpretation of "equal protection" that would trivialize the evolutionary differences between normal and abnormal.² Therefore, if a state were legislatively to choose to eliminate the man-woman requirement for "marriage" in that state, so be it. However, just as Nevada's power to legalize prostitution does not enable a Nevada prostitute to invoke Full Faith and Credit to bring suit in the home state of a tourist to collect on a bad check tendered in Nevada by the tourist for services of the prostitute if the home state of the tourist is one in which contracts for prostitution are unenforceable as against public policy, one state's having granted a "marriage" license to two people of the same sex, or to a polygamous relationship, should not enable the holders of such license to invoke Full Faith and Credit to demand recognition of such license by another state deeming such arrangements to be against its public policy. This is not rocket science, and these Conflicts of Laws principles are not new to our Republic.

In contrast, if a state were to establish a procedure for licensure of civil unions (i.e., contractual obligations with most, but not necessarily all, the incidents of marriage), then the argument for Full Faith and Credit recognition of such unions would be dramatically enhanced, although not guaranteed, because grounds for distinguishing between civil unions and marriage would be far less likely to be deemed contrary to the public policy of a state not yet formally recognizing civil unions. Thus, this is one of those controversies best suited for legislative evolution rather than judicial revolution.

Quantum Theory of Marriage·

The feminist doctrine on marriage
perceives it a tool to disparage
the value of women
as merely fulfillin'
subservient roles in the marriage.

The masculine doctrine on marriage
perceives it a tool to disparage
disbursement of seeds
at odds with the needs
of offspring produced by the marriage.

Though sanctified doctrines on marriage
have not uniformly disparaged
polygamous unions
homogenous unions
through hist'ry were always disparaged.

Though secular doctrines on marriage
through hist'ry were slightly more varied
than sanctified views
they always eschewed
homogeneous unions as marriage.

The Western tradition of marriage
promoted monogamous marriage
as passing the test
on what would be best
for seeds to posterity carried.

Rejecting statistical rareness
of non-procreational marriage
to bar or revoke
the marital cloak
does not its main purpose disparage.

For laws to confer special status
on man-woman rites that begat us
does not serve to slight
homogenous rites
with less than identical status.

Rejecting such specialized status
on man-woman rites that begat us
ignores the oases
of rational bases
supporting such specialized status.

That most who support special status
for man-woman rites that begat us
are moved to embrace
the status by Faith
does not negate grounds for the status,

'Cause ample and secular grounds
for marriage as special abound
that make it unique
for serving the needs
of seeds for posterity bound.

However, uniqueness of marriage
ought not to be grounds to disparage
the needs of the few
that unions accrued
in love be respected like marriage.

So therefore the proper solution
would license homogenous unions
of mutual vows
for status endowed
to complement marital unions.

To license homogenous unions
as diff'rent from marital unions
concedes we should use
distinctions to choose
the relative states of such unions.

Equality bars the consumption
of difference by sameness presumption
in contexts in which
a diff'rence exists
that warrants a diff'rent assumption.

Adoption's but one such example
where grounds for distinctions are ample
that pref'rence be shown
'cause mom-and-dad homes
for kids provide nurture more ample.

The vast majority of heterosexual parents contemplating their children being orphaned by their own deaths and unavailability of relatives or friends to adopt them would want whoever would assume responsibility for placing their children for adoption to accord preference to heterosexual couples as being in the best interests of the orphaned children. That such preferences ought to be respected (and presumed) demonstrates the folly of the argument that "Equal Protection" prohibits such disparate treatment between same-sex and opposite-sex couples. This legitimate governmental purpose is alone³ sufficiently compelling to overcome any presumption of sexual classification for purposes of marital licensure as being "suspect"; therefore, such classification could not reasonably be deemed violative of the Equal Protection guarantee. Thus, it is sufficient to afford homosexuals the opportunity to enter into "civil unions" but nevertheless decline to classify them as marriages. That homosexuals, like heterosexuals, desire to make mutual, life-long commitments to each other's well-being is admirable and worthy of licensure as "civil unions" but not as "marriages." It's an imperfect solution in an imperfect world. It's time for sensible secular people to wake up from the delusional dream that whatever religious people favor must be wrong.

In case you're wondering why Ralph Nader's name is included in the headline, it's because on Meet the Press today, he, like the others, declined to confront the issues forthrightly.

--Jim Wrenn, Editor@PoliSat.Com.

¹·Although the Constitution permits classification of people as citizens or non-citizens for purposes of different treatment in a number of contexts, no such context is relevant to determining whether the Constitutional guarantee of Equal Protection prohibits classification of people according to sex in determining their eligibility for marriage. ·

²·I'm using the scientific, rather than a moral, meaning of "normal" and "abnormal." One need not invoke religion to understand the scientific fact that if homosexuality were to have become "normal" and heterosexuality "abnormal," the human race as we know it would not exist. Perhaps self-replicating, sexless beings could have, or would have, evolved, but they didn't. We did by virtue of heterosexuality being "normal" and homosexuality being "abnormal."

³·By characterizing this issue as being sufficient "alone" to negate the argument that Equal Protection requires treatment of civil unions as identical to marriages and prohibits preferences to heterosexual couples over same-sex couples in contexts in which it obviously makes sense to do so, I do not mean to imply that this is the sole basis for negating such Equal Protection argument.

...
For the Daily Update immediately preceding the one above, click here.

Donate your frequent-flier miles to military personnel to return home from port of reentry on leave: www.HeroMiles.Org.

·support our troops, support Bush, support Cheney, support victory in Iraq, support victory in Afghanistan, Clinton Liebrary, http://PoliSat.Com , PoliSatDOTcom, Salute America's Heroes, Fallen Heroes Fund, oppose Gore's Global Warming theory, support milblogs, Michael Yon, Pat Dollard, BlackFive, MilBlogs, MilBlogging, Michael Yon, Mudville Gazette, HotAir.Com, JawaReport, PajamasMedia , VictoryCaucus , VetsForFreedom , FreedomsWatch , DayByDayCartoon , WrennCom.Com , Video , Political Satire, Politics, News, oppose MoveOn.Org, oppose Code Pink, oppose DailyKos, oppose ANSWER, support PoliSat.Com, support WrennCom.Com, ·

First Things First: Salute America's Heroes · Fallen Heroes Fund · Frequent-Flyer-Miles for Troops · Thanks to Troops · Military News ·· MilBlogs ·

Home · Posts: Current /Recent · Videos/Toons/Songs: Latest · Embed-Codes · Text Index · Images Index · Archives: Old · New · About · Contact · Syndication · Affiliates ·

News Sources/Papers/Magazines Pundits Blogs ThinkTanks What is "property"? Pantheopians Global Climate Asteroids/Comets Hitting Earth--Risks/Predictions Science GlobalWeb