« A History Palette for Music |
Main
| Confusing DMCA "Database" Decision Not About Databases »
February 29, 2004
The Miller Marriage Amendment
Posted by Ernest Miller
According to the New York Times (reg. req.) a number of state legislators are taking up the issue of gay marriage and many are proposing state constitutional amendments against the practice (won't those states look foolish and backwards in 20 years, or less) (Legislators Push for State Action on Gay Marriage). Democrats in Georgia have a unique response to the call for a state amendment against gay marriage. They (facetiously, it seems) propose an amendment against adultery. Now, of course, an anti-adultery amendment doesn't make a lot of sense. The costs of enforcement would bankrupt the country. Besides which, you don't really want to throw people in jail for private acts, do you? On the other hand, we don't want people to think that adultery, which seriously undermines the most "fundamental institution of society" (in President Bush's words), is taken lightly. Thus, I propose a compromise.
What better way to show that adultery is not to be taken lightly then by holding our office holders to a higher standard? Not everyone is perfect, of course, and a blanket ban might occasionally be unjust, so I also leave room for exceptions to be made. Forthwith, my proposed amendment:
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken vows of marriage, shall have committed adultery. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Ask your members of Congress if they would support such an amendment and if not, why not.
Comments (4)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: Gay Rights
- RELATED ENTRIES
- › Kitchen Academy - Course II - Day 23
- › Kitchen Academy - Course II - Day 22
- › Kitchen Academy - Course II - Day 21
- › Kitchen Academy - The Hollywood Cookbook and Guest Chef Michael Montilla - March 18th
- › Kitchen Academy - Course II - Day 20
- › Kitchen Academy - Course II - Day 19
- › Kitchen Academy - Course II - Day 18
- › Salsa Verde
Ernest Miller pursues research and writing on cyberlaw, intellectual property, and First Amendment issues. Mr. Miller attended the U.S. Naval Academy before attending Yale Law School, where he was president and co-founder of the Law and Technology Society, and founded the technology law and policy news site LawMeme. He is a fellow of the Information Society Project at Yale Law School.
Ernest Miller's blog postings can also be found @
1. Cypherpunk on March 1, 2004 12:18 AM writes...
I have to admit that such a proposal highlights the hypocrisy of many of our politicians in an especially amusing and ironic way.
Nevertheless, I am uncomfortable with such tactics because they pander to what I see as an important ethical flaw in our society: our overzealous intolerance of hypocrisy. It seems today that one can be a thief, a fraud, even a murderer, and all is forgiven as long as you're honest about it. Look at Jayson Blair at the Times, about to become a big national celebrity with his book release. Look at our acceptance of the Mafia, even when they commit violence, as long as members are open and boastful about their activities.
Yet wait for a public figure to be found to be violating the moral code he preaches, and we bring down total condemnation. Look at Rush Limbaugh or William Bennett or Newt Gingrich. They're totally disgraced. Well, Limbaugh's hanging on by a thread, but really it's just a matter of time for him. Adulterer Gingrich is yesterday's news, and we won't hear anything from gambling Bennett for years.
Hypocrites deserve criticism, of course, but we should put it into perspective. In a way, it's not that bad to preach a moral standard that you can't live up to in person. You could argue that that's better than the seemingly more honest position of encouraging people to act immorally. And among the range of all possible crimes, just about any physical assault ought to rank worse than hypocrisy. But it doesn't seem to work that way.
So while I had a good laugh at the thought of politicians squirming when faced with an amendment that would hold them to the same moral code they preach, it's really not a fair tactic. For whatever reason, we as a society overreact to cases of hypocrisy. Exploiting that overreaction for political purposes does not raise the level of debate or encourage enlightened decision making.
Permalink to Comment2. Jenny Levine on March 1, 2004 04:06 AM writes...
I had the same thought about abortion. After all, it's something that has been upheld by the Supreme Court, and there are "activist judges" trying to take away U.S. citizens' right to an abortion. To point out the hypocrisy and really piss off the "Right," propose a constitutional amendment that will protect the right to an abortion!
Permalink to Comment3. Ernest Miller on March 1, 2004 02:07 PM writes...
Cypherpunk,
Interesting points about hypocrisy, yet I think you discount the importance of pointing out hypocrisy in those who make and/or enforce laws or volubly call for either.
If Jayson Blair becomes a celebrity, it is likely more for the racial issues his case brings up, then his lies. Where is Stephen Glass' celebrity? In any case, there is a difference between being infamous and celebrity. Blain is anathema in a large part of the media community, he won't be treated as a pontificator on Meet the Press anytime soon, as was Bill Bennett yesterday.
As far as your weighing the costs of a physical assault more than hypocrisy, that does not seem to me such an important issue. First, we already do treat assault worse the hypocrisy. You can go to jail for assault, but not hypocrisy. Given that we don't send people to jail for hypocrisy then trying to induce a sense of shame or social embarrassment is an appropriate response. Moreover, you don't generally accuse people of hypocrisy unless you disagree with them and are looking to dissuade others. We don't accuse or don't make much of the fact that a politician who commits murder and also makes it a crime is a hypocrite, because there is no need to persuade others that murder is wrong. However, in the case at issue, a controversial one, the charge of hypocrisy can be a powerful one.
Permalink to Comment4. BlueRhythmJohnny on March 8, 2004 10:48 AM writes...
If you read the proposed amendment carefully, you'll notice that it divides the world between 'married couples' which "consist only of the union of a man and a woman" and 'everyone else' - and it says that the "incidents of marriage" will be denied to EVERYONE who is not married.
It does not say that the "incidents of marriage" will be denied only to gay couples; it says they will be denied to ALL unmarried people, including heterosexual couples.
The current language of this amendment could easily be used to outlaw ALL sex outside of marriage.
Permalink to Comment