Tuesday, February 24, 2004


You know, after all these years I just can't believe these people. And, I can't believe the media for just printing their bullshit practically unchallenged. Here is the Musgrave FMA amendment:

Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.

About which Robert Bork says:

Robert H. Bork, the conservative former judge and former Supreme Court nominee and a leading drafter of the amendment, called that argument "preposterous." He said that the text clearly restricted only courts, not legislatures.

Which goddamn part of "NOR STATE OR FEDERAL LAW, SHALL BE CONSTRUED" did this lying fascist not comprehend? As written, even if a state passed a law saying "MAN ON MAN MARRIAGE ALLOWED," no court could construe that the law actually meant what it said.

...just wanted to add something else. It isn't really just about limiting the ability of the courts to construe it. It would also, as written, prevent the executive branch from construing the law as reading as it is written. So, the legislature can pass it. The executive branch can't implement it. Arguing that constitutional amendments which prevent the implementation and enforcement of laws don't "restrict legislatures" isn't simply semantics, it's flat out wrong, unless we've moved into a sort of legal version of "if a tree falls in the woods..." That is, if we buy Bork's argument it just means that constitutional law never restrains legislatures, as they can theoretically pass whatever crazy-ass un-constitutional bills they want, but the courts will stop them from being enforced. The only way to buy Bork's point is by granting all governmental power to the Court, on the basis that they're the final referee.

...the truth is, of course, that the amendment actually outlaws all new marriages.