Skip to comments.
Marriage definition defeated - bill aimed at preventing gay unions too vague (South Dakota)
Argus Leader ^
| Terry Woster
Posted on 02/10/2004 2:37:15 PM PST by Libloather
Edited on 05/07/2004 9:08:26 PM PDT by Jim Robinson.
PIERRE - An effort to define marriage in South Dakota was defeated in the state Legislature on Monday even though it enjoys the support of four of every five lawmakers.
Backers of the proposal hoped to form a bulwark against a recent court decision in Massachusetts and developments in other states that allow gays and lesbians to legally marry. But the language of the 39-word bill, which would make civil unions and domestic partnerships illegal in South Dakota, proved too vague for lawmakers. It was defeated 12-1 by the House State Affairs Committee.
(Excerpt) Read more at argusleader.com ...
TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Extended News; Government; Politics/Elections; US: South Dakota
KEYWORDS: dakota; defeated; definition; marriage; south
"This is a rights issue, not a religious issue."
Holy matrimony is a right - and not religious? Don't think so...
They were right to be nervous about the language in this bill. Since we are guaranteed the right to "peaceably assemble" and to make contracts, any law that restricted folks from doing so would not stand any judicial test.
Legislatures would be wise to simply define marriage as between a man and a woman and leave other sorts of legal relationships alone.
If they try to expand this to demonstrate that they are opposed to all relationships between same-sex partners, they will lose in court every time.
posted on 02/10/2004 2:46:49 PM PST
" ... as between a man and a woman and leave other sorts of legal relationships alone. "
The CORRECT way to do this is to NOT INVENT NEW DEFINITIONS OF MARRIAGE, UNION, ETC. under the law. A Defense of Marriage law codifying this appropriate response to the threat of the homosexual activists is likely the right answer.
It's really sad how the courts at the instigation of the homosexual activists have injected homosexuality into our Constitution and undermined the proper avenues to address this at the governmental level: the state legislatures.
"If they try to expand this to demonstrate that they are opposed to all relationships between same-sex partners, they will lose in court every time."
Judicial tyranny lives!
posted on 02/10/2004 3:06:50 PM PST
(Support Tancredo on immigration. Support BUSH for President!)
"This is a dog in a fight where there is no fight."
Wilful blindness -- there's no stopping the imperial left-wing judiciary.
Michael Coats of Rapid City told lawmakers he should have the same right to a loving relationship as anyone else. "Do I as a gay man have the right to exist?" he asked.
Complete non-sequitur and irrelevance alert.
The same thing happened in Nebraska. Most of the weasels in the unicameral claimed to be for the Defense of Marriage Bill, but every time one was actually put before them, professed to be 'concerned' about all sorts of impacts the language might have on other contracts. We eventually passed the most restrictive act in the country by petition, and amazingly enough, it seems to have had no effect at all on other contracts.
Advice to South Dakotans; give up on the legislature, and do this by initiative.
More advice to South Dakotans. Move. It's far too cold even here in Nebraska.
"Legislatures would be wise to simply define marriage as between a man and a woman and leave other sorts of legal relationships alone."
That's the key, but redundant. The word 'marriage' is already defined as such. All the Mass. legislature has to do is reject the Mass. supreme court's re-definition of the word as illegal, which it is. Any state can do the same thing. No big deal. You're right, though. The issue is being lost in trying to do two things at once. One, defining 'Marriage,' which has already been done, the definition of which has been in use throughout the world for centuries, and two, getting lost in a debate about contracts and civil unions. Two different issues. The quickest and best way to resolve this is to require that courts use existing definitions of legal terms when rendering a decision. It is not in their authority to make arbitrary re-definitions of words that do no fit their rulings.
If so, what good is a legal dictionary -- or even Webster's?
posted on 02/10/2004 4:52:36 PM PST
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson