H. R. 3920: Congress Could Overturn Supreme Court

Remember in social studies when they always talked about the three branches
of government and the checks and balances system that prevented that no one
branch could have all the power? Well, fuck that:

The Congress may, if two thirds of each House agree, reverse
a judgment of the United States Supreme Court

  1. if that judgment is handed down after the date of the enactment of this
    Act; and
  2. to the extent that judgment concerns the constitutionality of an Act
    of Congress.

Huh. Wouldn’t you know it – all the House members on the bill are hyper-conservative Republicans
(who obviously didn’t pay attention in civics class). Shocked, I am, shocked.

Backstory: This all boils down to the fundamentalist Christian freakshows being
miffed that the Supreme Court says that it’s okay for two men to have sex in
the privacy of their own home.

New watchword: Activist judges. This is the new
scapegoat for peeling back/halting civil rights progression.

Relevant, heated
disucssions at K5
and MeF.

This entry was posted in Politics on by .

About Andy

Gay Hoosier Taurus INFJ ex-playwright pianist gymbunny published author in San Francisco. Tw · Fb

13 thoughts on “H. R. 3920: Congress Could Overturn Supreme Court

  1. flounder

    ” Backstory: This all boils down to the fundamentalist Christian freakshows being miffed that the Supreme Court says that it’s okay for two men to have sex in the privacy of their own home.”

    Putting the argument on this proposal aside for a moment, I don’t know whether to laugh or cry when those who speak out against homosexuality and gay marriage are now considered the “freakshows” , while homosexuality (and gays’ demands for marriage) is now considered perfectly acceptable by progressive libs. How fucked up is that….

    COMMENT:
    If someone thinks that I don’t have the right to marry someone that I love very much and start a family if I choose, then yes: I consider them a freakshow.

    Equal rights is fucked up? Fuck that.

  2. Catherine

    Andy is soooo RIGHT….and a hottie too! =) I personally find it ironic that this generation of public officials, while they want to shout from the highest mountain that they oppose racism/discrimination carried out by earlier generations of public officials, are using a law (the requirement of a marriage license) that was enacted by those same earlier generations of public officials as a result of that same racism to now discriminate in an only slightly different way!

  3. Scott

    The irony is that absent a constitutional amendment, if passed, the law would be struck down as unconstitutional. Congress already has a remedy for dealing with Supreme Court decisions they don’t like… change the Constitution. The Supreme Court doesn’t make laws, they only interpret the Constitution. If Congress doesn?t like the Constitution (or the Court?s interpretation of it), change it. Third grade social studies must have been a bitch for Mr. Pombo and Mr. Doolittle.

    Cry flounder, cry. Yes, those who fight against equality and individual freedoms are freakshows.

    Andy rocks.

  4. flounder

    “Cry flounder, cry. Yes, those who fight against equality and individual freedoms are freakshows.”

    What a distortion of the truth. Are you also for the right for people to marry their children, marry multiple spouses, or how about marrying their family pet? And don’t try and tell me this isn’t the same thing, otherwise YOU will be guilty of the exact same thing you seem to be so against: limiting marriage to a man and woman.

    Even blacks are outraged that gays are trying to compare this issue to their struggle for equal rights. Liberals like to whine against intolerance, yet here we have them labeling those that speak out against gay marriage and homosexuality as sinful behaviour thats repugnant to God as “freakshows”.

    Hypocrites.

  5. Andy

    Actually, Flounder: it’s not the same thing.

    Pets can’t give consent.
    Children can’t give consent.

    What’s wrong with polygamy? Historically, polygamy has been restricted because it engenders inequal power strucutres within a marriage. But, as diversity continues to increase in the United States this will become an issue with some cultures and religions that permit multiple spouses. (Side note: notice how often you don’t see a woman married to multiple men, it’s almost always a man married to mutliple women. It is this economic disparity and inequity that is the legislation’s concern).

    The roots of same-sex civil rights may be different than the push for racial quality but the effects and symptoms remain the same: marginalization.

    Good article on polygamy and same-sex marriage. I’ve wondered all of this as well. But you can’t tell me that pedophilia and beastiality represent a slippery slope.

    Sinful behavior? That holds no water. Same-sex acts are no longer criminalized.

    Repugnant to God? Which god? There’s so many to believe in.

  6. flounder

    “Pets can’t give consent.
    Children can’t give consent.”

    You don’t have to be under 18 to be someone’s child. Admittedly, marrying someone’s pet is a stretch, but I can imagine only 30 years ago that even the “idea” of gay marriage would have been unthinkable..

    “What’s wrong with polygamy?….”

    good grief, enough said.

    “The roots of same-sex civil rights may be different than the push for racial quality but the effects and symptoms remain the same: marginalization.”

    This is exactly what is at the heart of liberal ideology and “political correctness”: we must not dare speak out against immoral, dangerous, destructive, illegal (et al) activities if it risks “marginalizing” anyone. A good example of this was a recent decision by a Canadian prison not to allow guards to use protective vests (even against hardened criminals) because it would make prisoners feel “marginalized”. Never mind the safety and wealthfare of the guards. Its this kind of euro-socialism that ends up hurting society.

    “Sinful behavior? That holds no water. Same-sex acts are no longer criminalized.

    Repugnant to God? Which god? There’s so many to believe in.”

    The point I was making is the reference being made here to anyone speaking out against homosexuality and gay marriage as belonging to a “freakshow”. The tolerance for others that liberals whine on and on about so incessantly is coveniently lacking in the gay marriage debate.

    By the way, because a behaviour is no longer criminilized does not preclude it from being sinful. But I realize that argument is lost on atheists and other secularists..

  7. Andy

    I can tolerate your view that I shouldn’t marry a man. I’m just not willing to let you stop me.

  8. flounder

    Not sure what you’re saying, did you mean you’re “not” willing?

    Anyway, I agree that the article you referenced was interesting. The immediate problem of privatizing marriages would be the tax consequences.

  9. Andy

    Okay Flounder – though we disagree – it’s always important to hear from other views. In closing – what is the big fear if gay marriage is legalized? What are you concerned is going to happen? I’m gonna give you the last word – I gotta get on a plane in a bit.

  10. Anonymous

    “Liberty of speech invites and provokes liberty to be used again, and so bringeth much to a man’s knowledge.”
    -Sir Francis Bacon

    “How about marrying the family pet? And don’t try and tell me this isn’t the same thing”
    -flounder

  11. flounder

    “How about marrying the family pet? And don’t try and tell me this isn’t the same thing”
    -flounder

    Taking things out of context doesn’t accomplish anything except show that your
    argument is weak.

    In answer to your request, I believe that Christ died for the sins of the world, mine included. I also believe what the Bible has to say about homosexuality. Whether people have a genetic predisposition for it or somehow “learn” the behavior I do not know. I don’t think it really matters.

    Homosexuals have been around for thousands of years. I do not feel threatened by them, I do not hate them, and I feel it is wrong to discriminate against them. And I am definitely in no position to be the morality police for sexuality.

    Having said that, I believe that marriage (regardless of what it has become) was instituted by God to be a sacred union between a man and a woman. I believe it is God’s law that would be violated if homosexuals were allowed to marry, not mine. Would I be affected by homosexual union? I don’t know. I somehow don’t envision hordes of gays breaking down my door to wave their marriage certificate in my face. I also don’t forsee my boss suddenly lowering my salary due to gay union. However, I do believe it is repugnant to God. As far as sins go, I do believe some are worse than others, but if you imagine sin as a lake, and God says, “Don’t get wet!”, are the people wading ankle deep any less guilty than those diving to the bottom? Therefore, I am not their judge. But I know what the Bible, which I believe to be the word of God, has to say. And He is their judge. And if belief in the Bible marks me down as a bigot, intolerant, ignorant, or closed-minded, then I guess that’s what I am.

    I believe that legitimizing gay marriage will only be another dark blot on our ledger among many others like abortion. It is one we will answer for. You never really “get away” with anything. It takes us away from the light.

  12. Dave

    Way to go Andy! If the bums can’t represent us legally, throw the bums out. You inspired me to write this article: http://davesplanet.net/hr3920, hope you like it, I’m not as eloquent a writer as you but I know when something stinks, and congress is getting way out of control.

Comments are closed.