markomalley

I am what I am in large measure because of my past experiences. Pleasant or unpleasant, they combine to make me me. I can think of a lot of things that I really didn't enjoy, but I would be the less for coming through them. I can also think of times I have been deceived. Had I not been deceived then, I would be that much more naive now. Although there are plenty who don't approve of me, I approve of myself. So, I can't really say that I wish I wouldn't have spent those years. I have no idea who I'd be now if I wasn't involved. Having said that, I recognize that there are those who still are undergoing severe psychological problems because of TWI. I also understand that there are more than a few who killed themselves because of it. So, my reasoning does not universally apply. I can say this: if I knew then what I know now, there's no way. I can also say this: I would certainly be richer if I still all the ABS that got flushed down the toilet.

Defense of Marriage Act. A patently unconstitutional piece of legislation (overwhelmingly) passed by Congress and signed by Clinton (yes, Clinton, not Bush) because of the fear that a state will legalize gay marriage -- they don't want other states to have to accept gay marriages. Why is it unconstitutional? Because of Article 5 of the constitution, which states essentially that one state must accept public records, licenses, and court orders made by another state. (Gay marriage falls under public records).

Try this one. http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachus..._deep_division/ It gives some good background.

and...in which case, the legislators of the state should change the rules stating who is qualified to enter into a marriage contract. Fine. But that's not what is happening. It's being shoved down their throats.

Although that article is interesting, what does it possibly have to do with this thread?

Without a doubt. Common law is used where there is no statutory law or constitutional law that can be applied to the situation. But, in this case, common law cannot be used in any state, because there is statutory law in place. An example of making law is abortion. They created a right to have an abortion where none existed; in fact, the ruling reversed all the statutory law and case law that was in force up to that time. This is another example.

You and I both know that DOMA is patently unconstitutional. Why even bring up DOMA? It was a political trick done to appease voters back home. It's not worth the paper and toner it's printed with. It is a very minor bump in the road.

From a legal perspective, nothing prevents it. But, nothing requires it either. Rights or priviledges...there is a big difference. Our rights evolve from the US Constitution. The rights of the resident of a state evolve from that state's constitution as well as the US Constitution. There are certain things that are listed as "rights." Freedom of speech, freedom of the press, free exercise of religion, etc. However, and this is important, the way that those "rights" are listed is in terms of a limitation of governmental power. If we want to further limit governmental power (to guarantee people's rights), there is a mechanism to do so. That mechanism is through the constitutional amendment process, contained in article 5 of the Constitution. (Each state also has a process for their constitution) With the exception of the limitations put on government by the constitution, the legislative branch of whatever level can basically pass any law that they choose, consistent with the roles defined by the constitution that establishes the legislature. This may sound silly, but literally, if a legislature wants to pass a law forcing everybody in that state to wear purple on the third Thursday of a month, they can, provided that the state constitution doesn't prohibit it. That's the source of a lot of the strange "blue laws" you hear about. The functions of the courts in this area is to interpret those laws to make sure they are not in violation of the constitutions involved.(federal and state -- in the case of state law; federal only, in the case of federal law). The courts are not supposed to make new law. What is offensive about this Mass. case is that the Mass. Supreme Judicial Court has essentially created a right out of the ether. They are forcing the Mass. legislature to pass a law acceptable to this court, under the threat of the court creating a law itself if the legislature doesn't bow to its will. Freedom of sexual behavior is not a guaranteed right under Mass. law; neither is the right of anybody to get married. If the legislature of a state chooses (not under the threat of blackmail from the courts) to modify their marriage rules to allow same-sex marriages, so be it. But, it is not the role of a court to create a right where one doesn't exist. What really scares me here is that, if this actually happens, there will be a constitutional amendment to the US Constitution to rectify the situation. It will pass. Guaranteed. If it doesn't pass in 2004, there will be an outcry. A lot of congress-weenies may be replaced if they vote against it. It will pass in the next Congress. With about 6 exceptions (CA, OR, WA, MA, HI, VT) it will pass overwhelmingly in the states (It takes 38). That amendment may be an over-reaction to the situation. I don't know if you read about prohibition, but this amendment may have a worse effect than prohibition ever had. I don't want to see that happen to my country.

I've been trying diligently to keep my personal/ religious/ moral feelings out of this discussion as much as possible, as well. I think the bigger issue is how this decision was made and the implications of the decision. I think as long as we keep the discussion on that level, then we can keep the discussion polite and constructive...

Leviticus 20:13 "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them." Having said that, in modern society, Biblical beliefs and practices have nothing to do with society or the law. Homosexuals should be pushing for an amendment modifying the 15th amendment to the constitution including sexual practices and preferences to the equal rights provisions of that amendment. So, Linda, what does the Bible have to do with this argument, anyway?

You are right, there are literally law libraries full of precedents...There is one area where your analogy falls apart. This is an area of long-standing precedent of one man - one woman. In Maryland, the law goes back to the 1670s; I am sure, in Mass., the law goes back even further (here I'm talking about case law in addition to legislation). The court has turned over hundreds of years of common law and statutory law by fiat. The issue of civil rights is a good analogy to this situation here. People were being discriminated upon based upon their skin color, an immediately identifiable biological trait. Here, people are discriminated upon based upon (depending on your view) a behavior pattern or a biological trait that manifests itself in a behavioral pattern. So, the analogy is not perfect and I acknowledge that. Despite that, the common thread is discrimination. The color-based discrimination issue is being resolved based upon the 15th Amendment to the US Constitution. The courts have reviewed and continue to review law, regulation, and practice based upon that constitutional law. Whether you agree or disagree with the individual decisions of the courts, they can hang their hats upon that amendment. In the case, there is no law, except for the law "created" by judicial fiat. Laws created by judicial fiat are, in my mind, an abomination. As a postscript, I will repro an extract of the Mass. court's ruling and the extract of the Mass. constitution that they "claim" to hang their hat on. It's a stretch, at best, imho. Still, that is not what causes my blood to boil. First, recognize that I am a resident of Md., not Mass. I have absolutely no say in how they make their law, how their courts are run, or anything else to do with that state. If this judicial fiat is allowed to stand, the law in my state will be irrevocably impacted. The "full faith and credit" clause of the US Constitution demands that all states give full faith and credit "to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state." In other words, regardless of how my state decides the situation, we will have to honor and respect the rules created by this other state's court. And there is NOTHING I can do about it. If not for the implications of the "full faith and credit" clause of the constitution, I wouldn't care one way or another. I don't live there and its none of my business. Even with the "full faith and credit" clause, I still wouldn't be that upset, had the legislature of Mass. decided to pass the appropriate law. But, when a state court creates law in another state that will impact me and I am powerless to do something about it, that makes my blood boil. Now I searched the Mass. constitution and so far as I can tell, I think what that court is referring to is: http://www.billericanews.com/laws/maconst.htm I hate to agree with Cynic, but if this article justifies same sex marriage, it also justifies polygamy/polygyny. It also justifies a whole lot of behaviors (use your imagination), under the guise of seeking and obtaining safety and happiness.

As much as I dislike fundamentalism, I think that would be a low blow, especially in context of TWI.

Well, depending upon your marital experience(s), I would think that marriage would be a "pursuit of happiness". So... To me, that implies a right to marriage. But I'm no lawyer and I don't know how or even if the Declaration of Independence has anything to do with constitutional law. _?????????????_ That's sort of funny...A lot of fundamentalists (who know nothing about law)have tried to use that phrase as justification for outlawing abortion. :)-->

Federalism has met problems before and had to deal with them. The original framers could not cross every i nor dot every t nor foresee how things would develop in the future. It created problems between states over slavery, the rights of states to secede from the union (ok in principle but if they do in fact secede we will fight a bloody civil war), the rights if states to discriminate against their own citizens etc. They could not foresee how some provisions they made would be abused - the right to bear arms, the separation of church and state etc. Not could they foresee that a time would come when people who had always been there in the population would have aspirations to equal treatment in the area of marriage. That is one reason why the Supreme Court is there - to interpret the Law where there are no specific provisions one way or the other as to whether they can be applied under other provisions or not. As society evolves new things have to be taken into consideration, new tensions and conflicts resolved, areas of doubt and disagreement highlighted. Such experiences are not unique to the USA but the system by how this is done varies from country to country. There are additional tensions and problems that a federal system creates and all legislation has to be tested to see if it is in fact watertight or a dogs breakfast with flaws. Maybe that is why so many politicians are lawyers! :D--> Trefor Heywood "Cymru Am Byth!" Trefor, thank you for the thoughtful response. But, that is our system, as flawed as it may be. On the area of "rights:" Homosexuals should undoubtedly have the same freedom of speech, press, and religion as heterosexuals. Homosexuals should have the same right to bear arms as heterosexuals. etc., etc., etc. No state should be able to make laws that abridge those rights for anybody. On that point I'm sure we agree. However, again, where is marriage defined as a "right." To my knowledge, it is nowhere. If it is not a right, the states can regulate it. They do so in statutory law and administrative regulation. As long as those laws and regulations do not violate somebody's constituional rights (not perceived rights, but those rights that are actually are enumerated in the US Constituion), they have the full authority to do so. In this country, we have a patchwork of marriage laws. In some states, both parties must be 18. In some, 17. There are even a couple where they can be as young as 14, with their parents' consent. In MD, the age is 18, 16 with parental consent, but if the female is pregnant, they can marry at 15 without parental consent (but, with a doctor's certificate that she is pregnant). That's the way it is. And, truly, that's the way it is supposed to be. Messy, but for a country this size and this diverse, that's the only way it can be. If a legislature passes a law to change the criteria for issuing a marriage license and the governor signs that legislation, then so be it. But when a court intervenes and tells a legislature what laws it must pass, particularly when that legislature is not in violation of the US Constitution, and that ruling will impact all 50 states, then that is a major problem in my mind. The violation of process is a far bigger problem than the issue itself, to me. Honestly, the best way to achieve your side's ends is through the constituional process. Amend the 15th Amendment to forbid discrimination based on sexual preference or actions, based upon that sexual preference.

Excuse me, but there are some things that 'the PEOPLE' via the legislative process have no business in determining. _Private_ and consenting relationships between adults, and the full legal protection of them, is one of them. Good to hear from you buddy. I agree with you fully. The PRIVATE relationships between people who are empowered by the state to have those relationships are between those adults and the state shouldn't interfere. The qualification I make is not the sex of the people having the relationships but the age. In some states, consent can happen, with parental permission, as early as 14 or 15. I do not, nor will I ever, call a 14 or 15 year old an adult. Yet that person can consent (with restrictions). The key word is PRIVATE. Marriage is not private. Living together is private. Marriage is privilege granted by the state that allows qualifying people to enter into a binding contract. There are public implications of marriage. Taxation rights, property rights, health insurance, availability of public assistance, even the mere idea of public sanction and approval through the issuance of a license and certificate. As stated in the Wikipedia: "Marriage is a socially sanctioned union, typically of one man and one woman, in this connection called husband and wife. Typically they form a family, socially, through forming a household, which is often subsequently extended biologically, through children. It is found in all societies, but in widely varying forms. There are many variants on this basic form, many of which are discussed below: see same-sex marriage and polygamy for two controversial variants. " If the people of a state, through its elected officials, choose to sanction and give official blessing to different forms of marriage, so be it. But that's the way it should be done. Once again, what people do behind closed doors is their business, provided they are legally competent to consent to that business. "The people" can touch those rights. But, they have to go through the constituional process to do so. Never the less, you are confusing a "right" with a "priviledge." Freedom of religion, speech, etc. are rights. Marriage is not a "right." If it was a "right," you wouldn't need to get a license. I agree, as long as you are talking about what goes on in the bedroom. My argument here is not about that at all. This is an argument about rights vs priviledges; this is an argument about the courts overreaching their authority and legislating from the bench.More importantly, this is an argument about the concept of federalism. Garth, if you or Rocky or Trefor or anybody else that is in favor of what this court is doing can show me where marriage is a constituional RIGHT, please do so. (please provide a hyperlink when you do) Believe it or not, I will change my tune if you can do so.

Two issues: 1. The people of a state have, through their elected officials, defined criteria for licensing people to have the priviledge to enter into a legal marriage contract. The court has overruled the people's defined criteria. 2. The contracts entered into by two people in this state will have to be honored by the remainder of the states, regardless of the criteria established in the remainder of those states. Thus, this one STATE court has trumped the voice of 50 state legislatures. Excuse me, but I have a major issue with this. If the PEOPLE of Mass. or of Miss. want to, through their legislative process, remove the criteria of one man - one woman in their licensing process, so be it. (You didn't hear me complain a bit about Vermont's ruling, nor will you. I personally don't agree with it, but if that's the will of their people, so be it) Frankly, if the people of Utah want to allow more than two people to be licensed to be simultaneously married, so be it. If the people of Alaska want to remove the criteria that both people be of the species homo sapiens, so be it. But I don't want a state court in a state where I neither live nor have a voice to influence fundamentally changing the way marriage licensing is done in my state. This fundamentally defeats the priciple of federalism, which is fundamentally how our system of government works. There is no right to be married. [This message was edited by Mark on February 09, 2004 at 21:58.]

The thing that is really aggrevating to me is that the STATE court is defining a new RIGHT where a right did not exist. That right may well have to be honored by other states. Think about it a bit. Those of us that are married had to get a marriage license from the state prior to entering into that contract. A license implies a priviledge, not a right. You have to get a license to perform a number of other actions: to drive, to operate a radio station, to operate a restaurant, and so on. Those are all priviledges, not rights. Up until now, the ability to enter into a marriage contract has been a priviledge granted to a couple by the state. If this is successful, then that will set a horrible precedent that will have repercussions far beyond the homosexual marriage issue. The worst part of this is that, once again, you have a court defining acceptable and officially sanctioned behavior, despite what the will of the elected representatives of the people determine to be such behavior. Rocky: I agree. But, that's not good enough for some. They want to get IN MY FACE with their beliefs. If I don't agree with them, they say I am ***phobic. I don't care for Baptists, JWs, Wiccans, or Democrats ;)--> getting in my face with their beliefs. Why should I want some other interest group get in my face with their beliefs. [This message was edited by Mark on February 09, 2004 at 21:57.]

I just took a while and went through some of the threads in this forum and in the archives. I AM SO THANKFUL I DIDN'T HAVE TO GO THROUGH WHAT SO MANY OF YOU DID. Wow! (the word, not the acronym). Here's the abridged version for me: I was in for about 5 years during the 80s. Got involved in the ministry during a particularly low part of my life (doesn't that sound familiar) while stationed over in Germany. Took the foundational and intermediate classes while stationed over there. Had a small but enjoyable multi-national twig; we had association with both Rev Schneider's crowd and with the HQ crowd (because there were a good portion of military folk over there). Came back to the states and found a twig in So Illinois area. Good group -- we had a whole lot of fun there. Really only saw one total a$$hole in the area -- Rico Magnelli was WoW in the area during his apprentice year. Really & truly not much to say about it. As with many folks, I devoted the majority of my life to the things of TWI--work kept me in housing and in food and in beer. I don't know the degree of seriousness that any of us gave to the teachings of LCM. I don't think that any of us there were all wrapped up in what he said; as was pointed out by many folks, his degree of intensity and his degree of arrogance turned the majority of us off in that area. But...when you have "the truth," then there really isn't anyplace else to go. I know all of us longed for the good old days when "Dr" was in charge. We prayed that LCM would grow into his role. (foolish, wasn't it) Then the loyalty letter came out. Many of us decided to go our own way at that time. Co-incidentally, I had orders to get stationed in Turkey, of all places. So, when I left, I decided to put it all on hold and let it sort itself out. In the words of the Pharisee Gamaliel: So I figured that the best thing to do was to wait and see... 1991 - back in the states. Moved to California (Riverside area). I was fortunate to have found an "offshoot" group. But, I (and my new...at the time...wife) never were accepted into that group, so we stopped going (what got me in Illinois and in Germnay was the love and acceptance shared with the members of the group). So I just abandoned it all for several years. So, what about now. Well, this is where it gets interesting. The first thing I had to think about was trinitarianism. I looked at the groups that supported Arianism. What were they? Jehovah's Witnesses, the remnants of TWI, and some small offshoot groups. I had ZERO interest in getting involved with some mind control cult...so scratch the JW and scratch TWI (which, even before Waydale and GS, I realized had gone totally off the deep end). Tried an offshoot -- again, no interest (the...is that all there is? scenario comes to mind -- also, I'd been there, done that, and was really turned off). Non-Christian religions also had no interest for me. So, I had to go back and search the scriptures. Could I accept the Trinity concept? Although I don't want to get into a doctrinal debate, for me, I decided that I could. How is that? Well, I had to shake off the remainder of TWI's teachings. I had to examine them objectively (see Acts 5, above), and recognize that there were too many holes in their arguments. Too many cases of...well, it says this, but really MEANS this... I also rejected out of hand the fundamentalist crowd. I had dealt with too many cheshire cat smiles from those folks to want any association with them. (No offense to any baptists, nazarenes, or other fundamentalists in this group) So, I finally found someplace...But, that's a subject for an entirely different thread. BTW, for the record...Mark O'Malley is my on-line pseudonym. I like to maintain my privacy and...as has been posted, there is little or no privacy out there for those who use their real names.