NationStates Jolt Archive

Ladies and Gentlemen. This hot off the Press!

The California Supreme Court has ruled that the Mayor of San Fran over stepped his bounds by marrying gays and have declared all gay marriages done in San Fran, Null and void!

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/08/12/samesex.marriage.ap/index.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,128818,00.html

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=domesticNews&storyID=5959492

Good, now if we can just get them to follow the bible and what it tells us to do with the perverts!

BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

But oh well, gay marriage will be a reality soon and we will just press on until that happens.

I'm glad they did. Regardless on what should be done regarding gay marraiges, the mayor of San Fransico wasn't authorized to conduct those marraiges. Now we'll watch Rosie bitch about this.

I'm glad they did. Regardless on what should be done regarding gay marraiges, the mayor of San Fransico wasn't authorized to conduct those marraiges. Now we'll watch Rosie bitch about this.

Rosie will complain. Now she'll have to go to Massachutess to get her marriage legal but then....it won't be recognized outside the state of Mass thanks to DOMA

However, the point to remember here is that this was a procedural ruling, saying the Mayor overstepped his bounds. It is not a ruling on the constitutionality of same-sex marriage. The court made no call on that, just that the Mayor does not have the right to supercede the legislative and judicial branches on his own recognizance.

Well I can't say I agree with the laws, but the CA Supreme court seems to have made the correct ruling on this specific issue. The City did act outside the law to conduct the marriges. But the question is did the case only focus on the legality of the marriges or on the constitutionality of the law? Cause the 2 could have very different outcomes, in my oppinion at least.

Good, now if we can just get them to follow the bible and what it tells us to do with the perverts!

yeah! lets FORCE people into believe stuff!

Heck, god doesn't exist, so accept it and live on.

Good, now if we can just get them to follow the bible and what it tells us to do with the perverts!

Now if we can only get people to think for themselves.

Well I can't say I agree with the laws, but the CA Supreme court seems to have made the correct ruling on this specific issue. The City did act outside the law to conduct the marriges. But the question is did the case only focus on the legality of the marriges or on the constitutionality of the law? Cause the 2 could have very different outcomes, in my oppinion at least.

It only focused on the legality of the Mayor's actions, which was clearly beyond his scope. You can't claim to want protection under the law but then flout that same legal system. The constitutionality hasn't been touched yet and the CA supreme court made very sure to stay silent on that for the moment.

Rosie will complain. Now she'll have to go to Massachutess to get her marriage legal but then....it won't be recognized outside the state of Mass thanks to DOMA

isn't there a law that says if your marriage is legal etc in another nation/state, the state most accept you and your partner as married no matter what?

It doesn't matter if queers get married, I'll always consider them disgusting perverts that deserve to be put to death as prescribed in Leviticus 20:13.

Rosie will complain. Now she'll have to go to Massachutess to get her marriage legal but then....it won't be recognized outside the state of Mass thanks to DOMA

See I don't understand that. Can someone explain to me what the DOMA really says? Because doesn't article IV section 1 to the US Constitution read:
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.
And wouldn't that imply that a marrige in one state has to be recognized as a marrige in any of the other states?

It doesn't matter if queers get married, I'll always consider them disgusting perverts that deserve to be put to death as prescribed in Leviticus 20:13.

Hmm, I know someone who won't be getting an invite for a Fire Island time-share this year.

See I don't understand that. Can someone explain to me what the DOMA really says? Because doesn't article IV section 1 to the US Constitution read:

And wouldn't that imply that a marrige in one state has to be recognized as a marrige in any of the other states?

And here you've just encapsulated exactly why DOMA is unconstitutional and as soon as it's challenged in the Supreme Court it will either have to be ruled as such or we will have to rewrite the Constitution.

http://www-unix.oit.umass.edu/~leg450/doma.htm

isn't there a law that says if your marriage is legal etc in another nation/state, the state most accept you and your partner as married no matter what?
Yeah, it's called Article IV, Section 1 of the United States Constitution

It doesn't matter if queers get married, I'll always consider them disgusting perverts that deserve to be put to death as prescribed in Leviticus 20:13.

And Levictus as a whole is what we in the western countries base our laws and ways of living on..?

However, the point to remember here is that this was a procedural ruling, saying the Governor overstepped his bounds. It is not a ruling on the constitutionality of same-sex marriage. The court made no call on that, just that the Governor does not have the right to supercede the legislative and judicial branches on his own recognizance.

Berk! It was a ruling against the MAYOR not the governor! The Mayor has overstepped his bounds and declared ALL gay marriages null and Void.

Yeah, it's called Article IV, Section 1 of the United States Constitution

DOMA however took it out on the gay marriage issue! Do I have to pull DOMA out again?

It doesn't matter if queers get married, I'll always consider them disgusting perverts that deserve to be put to death as prescribed in Leviticus 20:13.
...
How's your houseslave doing? Is your sister for sale? Don't cite the bible as reason for anti-homo propaganda. It is outdated, oldfashioned, hateful and homicidal. There are a lot of biblical laws which would mean your own death.

Yeah, it's called Article IV, Section 1 of the United States Constitution

Come to Sweden then! We have something called "Partnerskap"(Partnership), that is very very close to marriage(intended to be a none-marriage marriage if you understand what I mean). Also, I am pretty sure, just not 100% that we allow civil gay marriage but it's still on debate wither the church as a whole should accept to do a cermonial act in the curch or not. Atm, they are allowed to do a cermonial act on the curchsteps. And that's actually where the cermony took place around 13th century or so.

It doesn't matter if queers get married, I'll always consider them disgusting perverts that deserve to be put to death as prescribed in Leviticus 20:13.


Yeah and Leviticus 21:18-21 :
18: For no one who has a blemish shall draw near, a man blind or lame, or one who has a mutilated face or a limb too long,
19: or a man who has an injured foot or an injured hand,
20: or a hunchback, or a dwarf, or a man with a defect in his sight or an itching disease or scabs or crushed testicles;
21: no man of the descendants of Aaron the priest who has a blemish shall come near to offer the LORD's offerings by fire; since he has a blemish, he shall not come near to offer the bread of his God.
Implies that one can't go to church if he's blind, short, or had a terrible run in with a horse, god forbid a combination of all three. The Book of Leviticus is a load of crap.

Berk! It was a ruling against the MAYOR not the governor! The Mayor has overstepped his bounds and declared ALL gay marriages null and Void.

Whoops. My bad. :)

Point still stands, though, that the ruling is on the specific powers granted to the mayor and the legal exercise of those powers, not on the constitutionality of legislation outlawing same-sex marriage. The CA supreme court didn't rule on that issue and didn't revoke those marriages because of that, but because the MAYOR didn't have the authority to circumvent the legislative and judicial branches in the first place. This wasn't a case about Constitutionality, but about procedure and scope of power.

...
How's your houseslave doing? Is your sister for sale? Don't cite the bible as reason for anti-homo propaganda. It is outdated, oldfashioned, hateful and homicidal. There are a lot of biblical laws which would mean your own death.


I know all about the laws in regards to slavery etc. The New Testament also says "Slaves obey your masters as you would obey God". Also you don't have you sell women, but you can in you want to.

I know all about the laws in regards to slavery etc. The New Testament also says "Slaves obey your masters as you would obey God". Also you don't have you sell women, but you can in you want to.

So, do you mind answering the question I asked you a lill futher up in this thread?

Whoops. My bad. :)

Point still stands, though, that the ruling is on the specific powers granted to the mayor and the legal exercise of those powers, not on the constitutionality of legislation outlawing same-sex marriage. The CA supreme court didn't rule on that issue and didn't revoke those marriages because of that, but because the MAYOR didn't have the authority to circumvent the legislative and judicial branches in the first place. This wasn't a case about Constitutionality, but about procedure and scope of power.

Did I say they banned it in the state of California? I don't think I did Berk! I just posted what the SCOCA stated!

DOMA however took it out on the gay marriage issue! Do I have to pull DOMA out again?
no, but you do have to pull out where it says laws can override the constitution without being part of the constitution

Did I say they banned it in the state of California? I don't think I did Berk! I just posted what the SCOCA stated!

Did I accuse you of saying it!?!

Did I accuse you of saying it!?!

Sorry that is what it sounded like! :) I forgot that others here think that is what it means!

no, but you do have to pull out where it says laws can override the constitution without being part of the constitution

Well so far it has been around for what, 8 years?

Good, now if we can just get them to follow the bible and what it tells us to do with the perverts!

The scary thing is that you're serious.

You Christians are so very sad. It's a good thing that in a century or so there will be none left, and they will all be secular, sane, and reading about science instead of science fiction.

Well so far it has been around for what, 8 years?
because it hasnt been challenged in the court and struck down doesnt mean it is legal, if the courts could take cases without them being brought up it would be struck down already

Sorry that is what it sounded like! :) I forgot that others here think that is what it means!

Fine, just so's we're on the same page. I agree with the CA Supreme Court's decision in this. It's silly for the Mayor to make an end-run around the same system and, in the same breath, claim protections for currently unrecognized institutions, based on the system of law that was just circumvented. He way overstepped his powers and legal mandate and the Court was right to slap him down for it.

The scary thing is that you're serious.

You Christians are so very sad. It's a good thing that in a century or so there will be none left, and they will all be secular, sane, and reading about science instead of science fiction.


Within a century the world will have ended. The end times are close at hand.

because it hasnt been challenged in the court and struck down doesnt mean it is legal, if the courts could take cases without them being brought up it would be struck down already

Actually I sincerely doubt it!

Fine, just so's we're on the same page. I agree with the CA Supreme Court's decision in this. It's silly for the Mayor to make an end-run around the same system and, in the same breath, claim protections for currently unrecognized institutions, based on the system of law that was just circumvented. He way overstepped his powers and legal mandate and the Court was right to slap him down for it.

I agree with you Berkylvania

It often never ceases to amaze me how the neocons will scream the buzz word "extremist judges", but refuse to admit that the whole damn country was founded on the idea of "extremist ideas".

Granted, those of us on the left call it by what it really is .... Civil Disobedience.

Seeing things like judges and mayors making up their own minds, going against the grain of things, and stepping outside their mandate when an issue becomes completely intolerable - such as the idea of discrimination against citizens of the US - to do that which they feel is right is what this whole damn mess started with way back in the 1770s.

Do we want courts that will do simply as they're told? What about the exodus of democrats on the Texas State Senate to Oklahoma in order to keep the Republicans from getting a quorum when redistricting was called to a vote - a redistricting that would give Republicans *all* of the power in Texas (a classically Democratic state until the Bush's raped the TX Supreme Court).

Rick Perry and the neocons screamed they should be imprisoned ... the rest of Texas said, "Nah ... that sort of Civil Disobedience is what gives me hope in the process of Democracy."

So ... take your pick ... "extremist judges" or "civil disobedience" ... no matter what you call it, without it there would be no US to love or bitch about.

because it hasnt been challenged in the court and struck down doesnt mean it is legal, if the courts could take cases without them being brought up it would be struck down already
Cases have been brought up, but the Supreme Court has refused to review any of them.

Actually I sincerely doubt it!

You mean that if the 5th Distict Appeals court could take this case without having it brought before them, they'd let it stand? Hardly, they'd shut it down in an instant. They shut down the pledge of allegiance, I'm sure they'd not even have second thoughts about shooting down the DOMA.

You mean that if the 5th Distict Appeals court could take this case without having it brought before them, they'd let it stand? Hardly, they'd shut it down in an instant. They shut down the pledge of allegiance, I'm sure they'd not even have second thoughts about shooting down the DOMA.

Since this was done at the State Supreme Court, the only option is for it to go to the US Supreme Court. It really doesn't have to go through the 9th Circuit Court! It was the 9th, not the 5th, that TRIED to strike down the Pledge.

Cases have been brought up, but the Supreme Court has refused to review any of them.

On what grounds does the supreme court refuse to look at the cases? This seems like something right up their alley.

Do we want courts that will do simply as they're told? What about the exodus of democrats on the Texas State Senate to Oklahoma in order to keep the Republicans from getting a quorum when redistricting was called to a vote - a redistricting that would give Republicans *all* of the power in Texas (a classically Democratic state until the Bush's raped the TX Supreme Court).
Do you know what you're talking about? The redistricting would not give all power to the Republicans, it simply for Congressional districts. In the 90s, the majority of Representatives were Democrats, in one of the most conservative states in the Union. Democrats could still gain power in Texas, it just changed the map so it wasn't quite so gerrymandered. Now its tilted towards the Republicans, but it is more reflective of the population now than it was 10 years ago. Representatives are supposed to represent the states they ar elected from. Texas sending so many Dems to the House was simply silly, and to try to hold that up as a good thing is silly too.

Within a century the world will have ended. The end times are close at hand.

Aw. You're so cute. You mean like the Y2K thing?

Since this was done at the State Supreme Court, the only option is for it to go to the US Supreme Court. It really doesn't have to go through the 9th Circuit Court! It was the 9th, not the 5th, that TRIED to strike down the Pledge.

Sorry, guess you're right. It was the 9th and not the 5th. But they didn't really try, they did. They just got overturned eventually, but don't even get me started on that.

if a mayor in SF can change the laws at will it sets the precident for other mayors to

what if the mayor in my town decided that the assult wepons ban is unconstitutional?

the marriages had to be revoked and the mayor needs to be diciplined

On what grounds does the supreme court refuse to look at the cases? This seems like something right up their alley.

Its a states issue is basically why!

Cases have been brought up, but the Supreme Court has refused to review any of them.

The thing is, that there haven't been any cases that the Supreme Court *could* review on this, because the person has to show that harm has been done. Same-sex marriage was not legal anywhere until recently in Mass. Now, all it will take is for a person to get married in Mass., move somewhere else, and then show how not being recognized harms them.

As for the current issue at hand, I agree that the mayor overstepped his bounds (although with good reason). However, I think the courts should have held out on ruling on whether or not to annul the marriages until the constitutionality of the law is determined. That way, Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon (who may not live long enough to see this totally worked out in the courts) wouldn't have been harmed by the ruling.

Its a states issue is basically why!

Sure, but it is, or rather will become, an issue between states which makes it a federal issue.

Sure, but it is, or rather will become, an issue between states which makes it a federal issue.

Then that'll be a sad day for the US because I firmly believe that this should be decided at the state level and not on the federal Level.

The scary thing is that you're serious.

You Christians are so very sad. It's a good thing that in a century or so there will be none left, and they will all be secular, sane, and reading about science instead of science fiction.


This comment shows a basic misunderstanding of human nature.

Worship at the alter of "Science" (which I have extreme respect for, BTW) or the alter of the Great G.O.D. of the Holy Virgin Lotus Muncher,.. spirituality is simply an inherent function of the human condition.

Let the "market of ideas" deal with issues like this.

Oh,... by the way,.. would you rather have the Taliban in control of things..?!

Then that'll be a sad day for the US because I firmly believe that this should be decided at the state level and not on the federal Level.

So then you don't support the DOMA, as it is a decidedly federal action?

Then that'll be a sad day for the US because I firmly believe that this should be decided at the state level and not on the federal Level.

You think that the issue of whether or not states have to follow the constitution should be decided at the state level? If we let that happen, the South would most likely still have Jim Crow laws.

The thing is, that there haven't been any cases that the Supreme Court *could* review on this, because the person has to show that harm has been done. Same-sex marriage was not legal anywhere until recently in Mass. Now, all it will take is for a person to get married in Mass., move somewhere else, and then show how not being recognized harms them.

As for the current issue at hand, I agree that the mayor overstepped his bounds (although with good reason). However, I think the courts should have held out on ruling on whether or not to annul the marriages until the constitutionality of the law is determined. That way, Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon (who may not live long enough to see this totally worked out in the courts) wouldn't have been harmed by the ruling.

Well, but to be fair, the only reason they were granted any sort of marriage license in the first place is because the Mayor knowingly tried to circumvent correct procedure. You can't do that with this type of hot button issue because it's bound to draw fire. So, Martin and Lyon should be just as angry with Newsom making promises he had no business making and no way of keeping.

Ditto re: not against gay marraige but ruling that SF mayor overstepped his authority, thus nullifying the marraiges.

So then you don't support the DOMA, as it is a decidedly federal action?

DOMA I do support! What I'm saying is that the question of Gay Marriage should be decided at the state level. DOMA just doesn't recognize it on the Federal Level but still leaves it up to the states to decide the issue. Also DOMA says that states that don't recognize gay marriage don't have to recognize the said couple as married. Though it doesn't ban gay marriage, it doesn't recognize it. All it recognizes is that marriage is between One Man and One woman.

Its a states issue is basically why!
its not a state issue, marriage can traverse states, thus it is a federal issue, and constitutional law states laws,statutes, and rulings must be recognized across state lines

You think that the issue of whether or not states have to follow the constitution should be decided at the state level? If we let that happen, the South would most likely still have Jim Crow laws.

On subject matters that are beyond the scope of the Federal government (such as marriage), yes, they should be decided at a state level. If government is going to weigh in on marriage one way or the other (and I still ultimately feel it shouldn't), then it should be at a state level, not a federal one.

Do you know what you're talking about?

Why yes I do!

its not a state issue, marriage can traverse states, thus it is a federal issue, and constitutional law states laws,statutes, and rulings must be recognized across state lines

It is a states issue Chess!

On subject matters that are beyond the scope of the Federal government (such as marriage), yes, they should be decided at a state level. If government is going to weigh in on marriage one way or the other (and I still ultimately feel it shouldn't), then it should be at a state level, not a federal one.

I totally agree Berkylvania

On subject matters that are beyond the scope of the Federal government (such as marriage), yes, they should be decided at a state level. If government is going to weigh in on marriage one way or the other (and I still ultimately feel it shouldn't), then it should be at a state level, not a federal one.


Let states decide? 41 states used to have laws against interracial marriages until in 1967 the US Supreme Court decided that was a "no-no".

its not a state issue, marriage can traverse states, thus it is a federal issue, and constitutional law states laws,statutes, and rulings must be recognized across state lines

Which is the problem with DOMA and why, when challenged, it's either going to set a major precedent for the subjugation of state's rights as not found in the Constitution or be thrown out as unconstitutional.

Individual states should retain the right to decide their own stance on gay marriages performed within that state. However, the other states should not be made to "give up" rights they've granted to citizens of that state. It's the same idea as Nevada having quickie marriages and divorces. These contracts are still recognized in all states, even though the specifics of marriage in that state may differ. So yes, again, if government has to put in it's oar, it's clearly a state's rights issue. Even Bush ran in 2000 on this being a state's rights issue and didn't change his stance until states were actually using those rights in a way that he didn't like (not that he waffled or anything...).

Let states decide? 41 states used to have laws against interracial marriages until in 1967 the US Supreme Court decided that was a "no-no".

Because those laws were fundamentally unconstitutional, which states do not have a right to do, and, once a DOMA case get's reviewed, you'll either find the same happening and it being ruled as unconstitutional or a lot of incredibly fast backtracking and rewriting of the Constitution.

its not a state issue, marriage can traverse states, thus it is a federal issue, and constitutional law states laws,statutes, and rulings must be recognized across state lines

I take it you're referring to the so-called "full faith" clause. The conflict between this and states' rights (9th and 10th Amendments) needs to be clarified by the Supreme Court. Until that happens, the states are the authority on the matter, since marriage is currently a state-level issue, not federal.

I totally agree Berkylvania

Yeah and I'm trying not to bring in my whole point about the government shouldn't be involved in marriage at all in the first place because that's when we start to disagree, I think. :) So I want full brownie points for the restraint I'm showing.

Yeah and I'm trying not to bring in my whole point about the government shouldn't be involved in marriage at all in the first place because that's when we start to disagree, I think. :) So I want full brownie points for the restraint I'm showing.

You got them hun! :)

DOMA I do support! What I'm saying is that the question of Gay Marriage should be decided at the state level. DOMA just doesn't recognize it on the Federal Level but still leaves it up to the states to decide the issue. Also DOMA says that states that don't recognize gay marriage don't have to recognize the said couple as married. Though it doesn't ban gay marriage, it doesn't recognize it. All it recognizes is that marriage is between One Man and One woman.

The only problem is this flies in the face of the constitution. The whole point of Article IV is that what happens in one state (things like getting a marrige license or a drivers license) MUST be recognized in any other state. There's no question. Think of how crazy it would be if you need to get 3 or 4 driver's license everytime you went on an interstate trip? Article IV is there to avoid all those sorts of issues. And how does the DOMA not ban gay marrige? It explicitly says that marrige is between a man and woman and is not recognized between 2 people of the same sex.

On subject matters that are beyond the scope of the Federal government (such as marriage), yes, they should be decided at a state level. If government is going to weigh in on marriage one way or the other (and I still ultimately feel it shouldn't), then it should be at a state level, not a federal one.

I wasn't talking about deciding on same-sex marriages though. Formal Dances said it would be sad when DOMA was challenged because it's a state's rights issue. The issue of whether or not to follow the Constitution (by recognizing legal proceedings of another state) is not a state's rights issue.

It is a states issue Chess!
how, i dare you to explain how, the rights given to marriage cross state lines, and i believe are federal, thus it is a federal issue, that was decided in many supreme court cases i could quote later

I wasn't talking about deciding on same-sex marriages though. Formal Dances said it would be sad when DOMA was challenged because it's a state's rights issue. The issue of whether or not to follow the Constitution (by recognizing legal proceedings of another state) is not a state's rights issue.

Agreed, I think. DOMA is yet another issue where FD and I split ways. It's clearly unconstitutional as it completely tosses bits of the Constitution out the window.

Agreed, I think. DOMA is yet another issue where FD and I split ways. It's clearly unconstitutional as it completely tosses bits of the Constitution out the window.

I figured as much. I just wanted to point out that the issue I was referring to was the unconstitutionality of DOMA.

Of course, I think that states can regulate marriage in any way they want, as long as it is consistent with the Constitution (which the Constitution says it has to be anyways.) And since discrimination based on sexual orientation is unconstitutional, I believe this will have to become a federal issue. Also, some of the rights of marriage are federal in nature - such as federal income taxes - so it will have to be addressed at that level too. I know you may disagree, but I feel that the issue will have to come to the federal level.

Here's a crazy idea: why not instate some kind of civil union and say that all marriages are, by definition civil unions. Also, state that all legal benefits of marriage in existing laws are now encompassing civil unions.

That way, every one gets the same benefits (that wich Gays want marriage for) and the religious folks get to keep their sacred institution. (No Gay marriage)

Or am I just dreaming?

I take it you're referring to the so-called "full faith" clause. The conflict between this and states' rights (9th and 10th Amendments) needs to be clarified by the Supreme Court. Until that happens, the states are the authority on the matter, since marriage is currently a state-level issue, not federal.
it has been clarified: that clarification being thigns that cross state lines become a federal issue

Agreed, I think. DOMA is yet another issue where FD and I split ways. It's clearly unconstitutional as it completely tosses bits of the Constitution out the window.

I'm waiting for the US Supreme Court to rule on this! If they rule for it fine, and if they rule against, that could cause some senators constipation and I'm not talking republican senators either. Some dems are saying that they'll support the FMA if the Federal Courts get involved on the issue of Gay Marriage. Now I know getting rid of DOMA doesn't mean its legal for Gays to marry but they will have to be recognized as such. That doesn't mean its legal. What some of these people are saying, and I forget which Senators these are, is that if the Courts are on the verge of making Gay marriage legal, then they will support the FMA!

how, i dare you to explain how, the rights given to marriage cross state lines, and i believe are federal, thus it is a federal issue, that was decided in many supreme court cases i could quote later

No, it has never been a traditionally federal issue. On the subject of marriage, the Constitution is silent and rightly so. This means that it is left up to individual states to decide. It is no more a federal issue than a marriage in Nevada crossing state lines is an federal issue.

It, however, becomes a federal issue if one state is allowed to exert supremacy over another state by long-distance nullification of the rights granted to a social contract in the first state. If state A legally recognizes same-sex marriage, and state B doesn't, then state B is within it's rights not to perform them. However, if state B goes further and says that it will not recognize the same-sex marriage performed in state A if the couple is now living in state B, then that is an issue that will have to be brought before the Federal Supreme Court for a constitutionality ruling. DOMA attempts to make an end run around this by basically giving states the right to pick and choose between which contracts they accept and which they don't. This is not only an attack on the unity of our nation, but clearly unconstitutional.

Ladies and Gentlemen. This hot off the Press!

The California Supreme Court has ruled that the Mayor of San Fran over stepped his bounds by marrying gays and have declared all gay marriages done in San Fran, Null and void!

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/08/12/samesex.marriage.ap/index.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,128818,00.html

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=domesticNews&storyID=5959492Wow, a rogue court in a joke of a state actually decides to uphold the laws of that state and the will of the people. That is the most surprising thing about this whole event.

On what grounds does the supreme court refuse to look at the cases? This seems like something right up their alley.

There are a myriad number of reasons SCOTUS could refuse to hear a case, and they vary on a case by case basis. It doesn't mean that the case doesn't fall under their purview, just that the specific circumstances of the case do not meet specific legal criteria.

Within a century the world will have ended. The end times are close at hand.

didn't the doompreachers say exact same thing the last century? and the century before that? and so on... I think they might be wrong once again.

Here's a crazy idea: why not instate some kind of civil union and say that all marriages are, by definition civil unions. Also, state that all legal benefits of marriage in existing laws are now encompassing civil unions.

That way, every one gets the same benefits (that wich Gays want marriage for) and the religious folks get to keep their sacred institution. (No Gay marriage)

Or am I just dreaming?

Exactly! That's what I've been advocating for. The government has no business involving itself in a religious institution, which is exactly what marriage is.

However, out of respect to FD and the fact that this is her thread, I'm not going any farther than this.

didn't the doompreachers say exact same thing the last century? and the century before that? and so on... I think they might be wrong once again.

And the century before that...

And the century before that...

And so on and so back...

Yet, to steal a phrase, Reports of the world's doom have been greatly exaggerated.

No, it has never been a traditionally federal issue. On the subject of marriage, the Constitution is silent and rightly so. This means that it is left up to individual states to decide. It is no more a federal issue than a marriage in Nevada crossing state lines is an federal issue.

It, however, becomes a federal issue if one state is allowed to exert supremacy over another state by long-distance nullification of the rights granted to a social contract in the first state. If state A legally recognizes same-sex marriage, and state B doesn't, then state B is within it's rights not to perform them. However, if state B goes further and says that it will not recognize the same-sex marriage performed in state A if the couple is now living in state B, then that is an issue that will have to be brought before the Federal Supreme Court for a constitutionality ruling. DOMA attempts to make an end run around this by basically giving states the right to pick and choose between which contracts they accept and which they don't. This is not only an attack on the unity of our nation, but clearly unconstitutional.

im not referring to marriage, im referrign to the nature of marriage. marriage is recognized by the government, thus it is a statute/record, thus the full faith and credit forces other states to recognize the marriages in one state as legal, and lets add into this the factor several of the benfits of marriage come down form the federal government and it becomes a federal issue

Oh,... by the way,.. would you rather have the Taliban in control of things..?!

I don't like extremist, whatever flavour they come in. They tend to be a bit... extreme. ;)

it has been clarified: that clarification being thigns that cross state lines become a federal issue

No, it hasn't been clarified, sorry. If it had been, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

No, it hasn't been clarified, sorry. If it had been, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
yes it has been clarified, i will finis this game im playing and look it up, unless you want to look up SC cases involving matter which traverse state lines

im not referring to marriage, im referrign to the nature of marriage. marriage is recognized by the government, thus it is a statute/record, thus the full faith and credit forces other states to recognize the marriages as marriage, and lets add into this the factor several of the benfits of marriage come down form the federal government and it becomes a federal issue

No, it does not and has not been a federal issue and the federal government has no purview over it unless it's practice directly conflicts with a specific provision of the Constitution. Hence the ruling of laws prohibiting mixed-race marriages as unconstitutional. Rights granted to all citzens by the federal government were being abridged by the individual state laws regarding this specific form of marriage. Thus, they were removed. However, this does not amount to a specific control of marriage from the federal level, only a continuance of it's general policy with specific applications. Should individual state laws and amendments (as well as DOMA) be found to be in conflict with the Full Faith and Credit clause, then this again will not amount to direct federal government control of the institution of marriage, per se. Rather, it will be simply laws passed that are outside of the scope of individual state governments when compared to the Constitution. It's a fine difference, but an important one.

Because those laws were fundamentally unconstitutional, which states do not have a right to do, and, once a DOMA case get's reviewed, you'll either find the same happening and it being ruled as unconstitutional or a lot of incredibly fast backtracking and rewriting of the Constitution.

Off topic question. How much of the orginal constitution is still there, how much have been erased and how much have been rewritten in to it?

Off topic question. How much of the orginal constitution is still there, how much have been erased and how much have been rewritten in to it?

It's all still there and it's not been "rewritten" or "erased", but extended on, to increase protection of freedom, by the Amendments. Just because we may have currently lost sight of some of the points, doesn't mean they are not there.

Off topic question. How much of the orginal constitution is still there, how much have been erased and how much have been rewritten in to it?

I see this question as trivial (in the logical sense, not the pejorative sense). All of the Constitution still remains the supreme law of the land. The only "erasure" or "rewriting" that has been done are the Amendments that have been ratified since the Constitution's inception.

I know you meant this question in a different way, and that discussion is complex. For example, some see various gun control laws as an abridgment of the Second Amendment, and thus a form of "erasure" or "rewriting."

Off topic question. How much of the orginal constitution is still there, how much have been erased and how much have been rewritten in to it?
IIRC, you cannot erase parts of the constitution. You can, however add an amendment declaring previous amendment no longer valid. Such has been the case with the prohibition amendment.

Here's a crazy idea: why not instate some kind of civil union and say that all marriages are, by definition civil unions. Also, state that all legal benefits of marriage in existing laws are now encompassing civil unions.

That way, every one gets the same benefits (that wich Gays want marriage for) and the religious folks get to keep their sacred institution. (No Gay marriage)

Or am I just dreaming?

Would be nice.

And on top of that allow those curches, and other religious institution, who wanna bless the union between two people who love eachother with a similair very much of the same, no matter what sexes those two induviduals have.

But, the problem is, some people are against it not just because they think it's wrong, but also because they think such a union wouldn't be as productive to the society(as if you need to marry to be more productive in the first place).

No, it does not and has not been a federal issue and the federal government has no purview over it unless it's practice directly conflicts with a specific provision of the Constitution. Hence the ruling of laws prohibiting mixed-race marriages as unconstitutional. Rights granted to all citzens by the federal government were being abridged by the individual state laws regarding this specific form of marriage. Thus, they were removed. However, this does not amount to a specific control of marriage from the federal level, only a continuance of it's general policy with specific applications. Should individual state laws and amendments (as well as DOMA) be found to be in conflict with the Full Faith and Credit clause, then this again will not amount to direct federal government control of the institution of marriage, per se. Rather, it will be simply laws passed that are outside of the scope of individual state governments when compared to the Constitution. It's a fine difference, but an important one.
IT CONFLICTS WITH THE FUCKING FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE ARTICLE IV SECTION 1


what im saying is deciding who can and cant marry is not a state issue because properties of it traverse states and are of federal control, thus making it a federal issue

IIRC, you cannot erase parts of the constitution. You can, however add an amendment declaring previous amendment no longer valid. Such has been the case with the prohibition amendment.

Oki, let me then refrase to, how much of the original constitution isn't valid anymore and how many % of the whole constitution does it take up?

It's all still there and it's not been "rewritten" or "erased", but extended on, to increase protection of freedom, by the Amendments. Just because we may have currently lost sight of some of the points, doesn't mean they are not there.

Well to be fair there are parts of it that have been totally repeled by the amendments. Sure in a physical sense all that 3/5ths compromise stuff is still there, but not in a legal sense anymore.

Anyway, does Article IV, Section 1 only work between states in the US or does it also grant credit to other nations aswell?

Anyway, does Article IV, Section 1 only work between states in the US or does it also grant credit to other nations aswell?
only between states

Yeah article IV only works between state. The Constitution has no bearing on the actions of other nations.

I see this question as trivial (in the logical sense, not the pejorative sense). All of the Constitution still remains the supreme law of the land. The only "erasure" or "rewriting" that has been done are the Amendments that have been ratified since the Constitution's inception.

I know you meant this question in a different way, and that discussion is complex. For example, some see various gun control laws as an abridgment of the Second Amendment, and thus a form of "erasure" or "rewriting."

You may see this as trivial knowledge, but to me, it's rather specific. You see, I am not from that side of the pond. ;)

only between states

Oki, but will my marriage(if I was married that is) and driverslicense etc be valid in the US then, or..?

edit: as I understand it this is the part that acknowledges those things in other states, correct?

Oki, but will my marriage(if I was married that is) and driverslicense etc be valid in the US then, or..?

I'd say the US would recognize the marrige, but no to the driver's license. You'd need to get one here or have an international one.

IT CONFLICTS WITH THE FUCKING FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE ARTICLE IV SECTION 1


what im saying is deciding who can and cant marry is not a state issue because properties of it traverse states and are of federal control, thus making it a federal issue

Only the Supreme Court can make that ruling, and they have not done so as yet. Since the Constitution does not specifically address the issue of marriage, that issue falls under the purview of the 9th and 10th Amendments (read them). This means it is a state-level issue, until the Supreme Court rules otherwise.

I'd say the US would recognize the marrige, but no to the driver's license. You'd need to get one here or have an international one.
It also depends if the US has an treaty with your country that recognise drivers licenses from each other. I know that Canada and US has one such accord but I don't know where you're from.

IT CONFLICTS WITH THE FUCKING FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE ARTICLE IV SECTION 1


what im saying is deciding who can and cant marry is not a state issue because properties of it traverse states and are of federal control, thus making it a federal issue

Wow, cause cursing helps.

What I'm saying is that it is irrelevant if marriages traverse state boundaries. What would make it a federal issue is if one state attempts to deny rights granted to citizens from another state. Then it would have to go to the Supreme Court for clarification. But even then, it is not a federal issue in the sense that the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES DOES NOT MENTION MARRIAGE!!! Lookie, I can use caps, too.

Only the Supreme Court can make that ruling, and they have not done so as yet. Since the Constitution does not specifically address the issue of marriage, that issue falls under the purview of the 9th and 10th Amendments (read them). This means it is a state-level issue, until the Supreme Court rules otherwise.

You are correct Galtania! SCOTUS hasn't ruled on this yet though I expect they will sooner rather than later!

Only the Supreme Court can make that ruling, and they have not done so as yet. Since the Constitution does not specifically address the issue of marriage, that issue falls under the purview of the 9th and 10th Amendments (read them). This means it is a state-level issue, until the Supreme Court rules otherwise.
it is still obviously a federal issue, everyone is just being dumb and intolerant, as soon as it goes to the supreme court, unless bush gets his people in, it will be struck down forcibly

I'd say the US would recognize the marrige, but no to the driver's license. You'd need to get one here or have an international one.

Hehe, that would be kind of lolish. As I said earlier Sweden has this Partnerskap that is to give gay couples same privelidges as married ones. I am not entierly sure that civil marriages can be conducted between 2 of the same sex(saying two homosexuals would be wrong since 1 gay and 1 lesbian can marry eachother, hehe). But on the other hand taking the driverlicense in Sweden is not a walk in the park. It usually takes some time and they test you rather hard,. But in the US i hear if you don't hit anything while driving around the block, you'll get your license(or pretty much so, meaning it is easy. may differ from state to state tho ofc). ;)

it is still obviously a federal issue, everyone is just being dumb and intolerant, as soon as it goes to the supreme court, unless bush gets his people in, it will be struck down forcibly

Chess, about 4 people have stated it isn't a federal issue so get off that kick! If you continue to do so, I will exercise my freedom speech and tell you you won't be able to post here anymore. This is my thread. I don't mind you posting in it but stop with the cussing and the insults NOW!

Wow, cause cursing helps.

What I'm saying is that it is irrelevant if marriages traverse state boundaries. What would make it a federal issue is if one state attempts to deny rights granted to citizens from another state. Then it would have to go to the Supreme Court for clarification. But even then, it is not a federal issue in the sense that the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES DOES NOT MENTION MARRIAGE!!! Lookie, I can use caps, too.
1) yes it is relevant, thats how these things are actually decided like it or not
2) they are doing that with gay couples marrying in one state and moving
3) IT DOESNT MATTER IF IT MENTIONS MARRIAGE, besides the fact of the matter is it isn't marriage that is in question, its whether or not states have to recognize marriages from other states and give them the same rights, the answer to that question is a resounding yes

You may see this as trivial knowledge, but to me, it's rather specific. You see, I am not from that side of the pond. ;)

I'm sorry, I didn't mean this as an insult, and tried to make that clear in my post. I see that you are from Sweden, and welcome your questions about the U.S. Please be assured that I did not use the word "trivial" as a bad thing.

it is still obviously a federal issue, everyone is just being dumb and intolerant, as soon as it goes to the supreme court, unless bush gets his people in, it will be struck down forcibly

No, it is NOT a federal issue because it has never BEEN a federal issue and even if the Federal Supreme Court rules on it, it does not MAKE it a federal issue because they are clarifying existing Constitutional law in regards to state law.

Great, Now GOD BLESS AMERICA.

Chess, about 4 people have stated it isn't a federal issue so get off that kick! If you continue to do so, I will exercise my freedom speech and tell you you won't be able to post here anymore. This is my thread. I don't mind you posting in it but stop with the cussing and the insults NOW!cussing i will quit
but is collectively addressing people in the whole united states who oppose gay marriage as dumb and intolerant really an insult?

dumb - slow to learn or understand; lacking intellectual acuity

intolerant - Not tolerant, especially:
Unwilling to tolerate differences in opinions, practices, or beliefs, especially religious beliefs.
Opposed to the inclusion or participation of those different from oneself, especially those of a different racial, ethnic, or social background.
Unable or unwilling to endure or support: intolerant of interruptions; a community intolerant of crime.


i assert not

cussing i will quit
but is collectively addressing people in the whole united states who oppose gay marriage as dumb and intolerant really an insult?

dumb - slow to learn or understand; lacking intellectual acuity

intolerant - Not tolerant, especially:
Unwilling to tolerate differences in opinions, practices, or beliefs, especially religious beliefs.
Opposed to the inclusion or participation of those different from oneself, especially those of a different racial, ethnic, or social background.
Unable or unwilling to endure or support: intolerant of interruptions; a community intolerant of crime.


i assert not

You've bashed alot of people on here who don't support Gay Marriage. That is what they believe and they shouldn't be bashed. You've even bashed me on this issue and I never stated what side of this debate I'm on.

Be clear and concise but don't resort to insults with whom you disagree with. One more insult and I'll ask people on here to ignore you in this thread.

I take it you're referring to the so-called "full faith" clause. The conflict between this and states' rights (9th and 10th Amendments) needs to be clarified by the Supreme Court. Until that happens, the states are the authority on the matter, since marriage is currently a state-level issue, not federal.
It's really more complex than that. Sure, individual states control who can get married. They limit marriages between close relatives, although standards vary from state to state on that. They limit the age at which people can get married even with parental consent. They handle the basics of registration of marriage and licensing. In that respect, it's completely a state matter.

The problem is that when it comes to federal taxes, Social Security benefits, pensions, inheritance law and a host of other issues, marriage is decidedly a federal matter. The moment that the federal government decided to provide some special benefit to married couples at the expense of single people, marriage became a federal issue.

The federal government also has purview over this matter for another reason. Marriage is a contract that deals--at least on some level--with commerce. Congress has the authority under the Commerce clause to regulate anything that involves interstate commerce, and marriage can certainly fall under that umbrella.

It seems to me that if gay rights opponents really want to make DOMA stick, they need to be arguing the opposite of what they have been, namely that marriage is a federal matter to be regulated by Congress and not a state one. Making it a federal matter removes the Full Faith and Credit Clause from the equation. It doesn't remove the 14th Amendment Equal Protection conflict, but the Full Faith and Credit problem is much larger in my opinion.

P.S. Most everyone here knows I'm in favor of same-sex marriage--I'm just positing a potential argument that deals with the most imposing challenge to DOMA.

You've bashed alot of people on here who don't support Gay Marriage. That is what they believe and they shouldn't be bashed. You've even bashed me on this issue and I never stated what side of this debate I'm on.

Be clear and concise but don't resort to insults with whom you disagree with. One more insult and I'll ask people on here to ignore you in this thread.
havnt you already stated you oppose gay marriage somewhere

havnt you already stated you oppose gay marriage somewhere

Gay Marriage yes but I never stated that I was opposed to Civil Unions that have limited benefits than a married couple of one man one woman.

I'm all for Civil Unions in this regard.

isn't there a law that says if your marriage is legal etc in another nation/state, the state most accept you and your partner as married no matter what?


Yes

It doesn't matter if queers get married, I'll always consider them disgusting perverts that deserve to be put to death as prescribed in Leviticus 20:13.


It also says to not touch pigskin or be killed, so stop playing football.
That rape victims should be stoned to death because they didn't yell loud enough.
Most of the men had like 32 wives
Best of all, it never says anything about women so, we can sleep with whomever we want
What it comes down to is you can believe in your bible and I can not believe in the bible, that is what religous freedoms infers. I have a constitutional right to happiness and that means even gay marriage. It doesn't mean you have to agree with it.

No, it is NOT a federal issue because it has never BEEN a federal issue and even if the Federal Supreme Court rules on it, it does not MAKE it a federal issue because they are clarifying existing Constitutional law in regards to state law.
Sorry, Berkylvania, but the moment the federal government gave special privileges to the sub-class of citizens who are married, then it became a federal issue at least in part, under the Commerce clause. Read my above post for more on this.

Sorry, Berkylvania, but the moment the federal government gave special privileges to the sub-class of citizens who are married, then it became a federal issue at least in part, under the Commerce clause. Read my above post for more on this.

But it is not regulated by the federal government and never has been. Regulation of marriage is now and has always been the province of individual states. The federal government's granting of special priviledges to those institutions does not amount to regulation and there has been no argument advanced (at least that I'm aware of) that the Commerce clause affects marriage and gives the federal government the right to usurp a traditionally state regulated issue.

Sorry, Berkylvania, but the moment the federal government gave special privileges to the sub-class of citizens who are married, then it became a federal issue at least in part, under the Commerce clause. Read my above post for more on this.

Which raises the question, why exactly should married people be given special treeatment?

By the way, the California Supreme Court just did gay people a favor. Now four thousand people with marriage liscenses are going to challenge the constitutionality of the law. The reason why they ruled on the state side, besides being cowards is they could just say oh, the mayor was wrong and not challenge the legality or constitutional rights of the gay participants. They couldn't find any way to do that. Once people brought up the mark of Cain and the old testament verse about defeating nations when black people wanted to have civil rights. I would break out my bible to get the exact quotes but it is not at my location. I don't want you to believe what I believe, that would be Un-American. I just want basic protection and rights to live under my own beliefs.

Which raises the question, why exactly should married people be given special treeatment?

they shouldn't, I should also be able to be single my whole life and not receive preferential treatment because I went to a Las Vegas chapel and said I do.

The federal government also has purview over this matter for another reason. Marriage is a contract that deals--at least on some level--with commerce. Congress has the authority under the Commerce clause to regulate anything that involves interstate commerce, and marriage can certainly fall under that umbrella.

Yes, the Commerce clause has been abused, in my opinion, for a whole host of bad reasons, as power grabs by the federal government. It's a mighty huge umbrella.

It seems to me that if gay rights opponents really want to make DOMA stick, they need to be arguing the opposite of what they have been, namely that marriage is a federal matter to be regulated by Congress and not a state one. Making it a federal matter removes the Full Faith and Credit Clause from the equation. It doesn't remove the 14th Amendment Equal Protection conflict, but the Full Faith and Credit problem is much larger in my opinion.

Just to state once again for the record: I do not oppose gay marriage. However, I believe it should be decided at the state level, per the 9th and 10th Amendments. I disagree that the Equal Protection matter is less problematic than the Full Faith matter. Full Faith clause issues are decided on a case-by-case basis, and supporters of DOMA have a better chance of a ruling in their favor under Full Faith than under Equal Protection, IMO.

I just looked up whole host of Full Faith rulings by the Supreme Court, and it's not the all-encompassing umbrella some here wish it to be. It's strictly case-by-case, and many times SCOTUS has ruled that Full Faith does not apply to what the litigants deemed to be interstate matters.

I didn't read most of this thread, but I'm sure it was nothing but name-calling anyway :p . Let me start out by saying that gays are not in any way discriminated against; they have the right to marry exactly one person of the opposite sex, just like everybody else. You can argue that it is discrimination since they can't marry their own kind, but it still holds true that gays have the same rights as heterosexuals.

The issue is complicated, but I say let each state decide. If Northeasterners want to destroy the most fundamental values of marriage, let them, and let married gay couples live there. The more religious states shouldn’t have to deal with behavior that they find to be so morally wrong.

But it is not regulated by the federal government and never has been. Regulation of marriage is now and has always been the province of individual states. The federal government's granting of special priviledges to those institutions does not amount to regulation and there has been no argument advanced (at least that I'm aware of) that the Commerce clause affects marriage and gives the federal government the right to usurp a traditionally state regulated issue.
I'd imagine that the Commerce clause was what the Congress used as its authority when it passed DOMA. I know the argument hasn't been advanced yet, nor am I suggesting that it would be more effective in the long run, since neither the states' rights argument nor the Commerce Clause argument overcomes the 14th Amendment Equal Protection problems with DOMA and with the non-recognition of same-sex marriages as a whole. I'm just suggesting that it would be a way to get around the Full Faith and Credit issue.

they shouldn't, I should also be able to be single my whole life and not receive preferential treatment because I went to a Las Vegas chapel and said I do.

Exactly. Here's a list of some of the 1,094 benefits that married people get, according to the first site that listed them and I could sleazily copy and paste from.

---------------
Access to Military Stores
Assumption of Spouse’s Pension
Bereavement Leave
Immigration
Insurance Breaks
Medical Decisions on Behalf of Partner
Sick Leave to Care for Partner
Social Security Survivor Benefits
Tax Breaks
Veteran’s Discounts
Visitation of Partner in Hospital or Prison

Here are a few of the state level benefits within the United States:


Assumption of Spouse’s Pension
Automatic Inheritance
Automatic Housing Lease Transfer
Bereavement Leave
Burial Determination
Child Custody
Crime Victim’s Recovery Benefits
Divorce Protections
Domestic Violence Protection
Exemption from Property Tax on Partner’s Death
Immunity from Testifying Against Spouse
Insurance Breaks
Joint Adoption and Foster Care
Joint Bankruptcy
Joint Parenting (Insurance Coverage, School Records)
Medical Decisions on Behalf of Partner
Certain Property Rights
Reduced Rate Memberships
Sick Leave to Care for Partner
Visitation of Partner’s Children
Visitation of Partner in Hospital or Prison
Wrongful Death (Loss of Consort) Benefits
--------------

Most of these only work if you have a spouse, and obviously it's only fair that everyone who has a "partner" has these rights.
[I phrase this as such so as not to explicitly say that homosexuals deserve these rights, as obviously in another time period I could talk about Jews or Blacks deserving these rights, and specifically pointing out homosexuals detracts from the flawless point that they ARE the same as anyone else who gets married]

That being said, I hate the law about Immunity from Testifying; one should have the option of testifying if they want to, but not be forced to (like in the Law & Order episode where the spouses themselves were the victims).
---

My other point was that I feel that there is some sort of annoying moralism the government is trying to impress upon us for marrying, which is why they have monetary benefits for those who do.

That being said, it's a dirty cheap trick, and I hate couples who have more than 2 children.

By the way, the California Supreme Court just did gay people a favor. Now four thousand people with marriage liscenses are going to challenge the constitutionality of the law. The reason why they ruled on the state side, besides being cowards is they could just say oh, the mayor was wrong and not challenge the legality or constitutional rights of the gay participants. They couldn't find any way to do that. Once people brought up the mark of Cain and the old testament verse about defeating nations when black people wanted to have civil rights. I would break out my bible to get the exact quotes but it is not at my location. I don't want you to believe what I believe, that would be Un-American. I just want basic protection and rights to live under my own beliefs.

They are not cowards, they just didn't overstep their bounds. The case was not regarding the constitutionality of gay marriage, but whether SF mayor exceeded his authority. They ruled properly. Courts should not be attempting to "find a way" to rule on issues not presented in a particular case.

I didn't read most of this thread, but I'm sure it was nothing but name-calling anyway :p . Let me start out by saying that gays are not in any way discriminated against; they have the right to marry exactly one person of the opposite sex, just like everybody else. You can argue that it is discrimination since they can't marry *their own kind*, but it still holds true that gays have the same rights as heterosexuals.


Wow. Your ability to look at an issue open mindedly and educatedly stuns me.
Please, tell me more of this new "kind" which is treated so equally. Please tell me that the list of benefits I just listed, and the other 800 or so aren't really that important and are a liberal lie.

I just looked up whole host of Full Faith rulings by the Supreme Court, and it's not the all-encompassing umbrella some here wish it to be. It's strictly case-by-case, and many times SCOTUS has ruled that Full Faith does not apply to what the litigants deemed to be interstate matters.Dahlia Lithwick made the same observation in a column about this matter at Slate.com. You're right, Full Faith and Credit isn't the silver bullet many same-sex marriage advocates seem to think it is--myself, until recently, included. In the long run, I think the Supreme Court will overturn DOMA and force both the federal government and the individual states to reassess the idea of civil unions and marriage, based on the logic coming from both the majority opinion and Scalia's dissent in Lawrence v Texas. But it won't happen anytime soon--not in the next five years at least.

Wow. Your ability to look at an issue open mindedly and educatedly stuns me.
Please, tell me more of this new "kind" which is treated so equally. Please tell me that the list of benefits I just listed, and the other 800 or so aren't really that important and are a liberal lie.

I said that gays aren't discriminated against like people say they are; what do the benefits you listed have to do with anything?

I said that gays aren't discriminated against like people say they are; what do the benefits you listed have to do with anything?

They are benefits that are only given to married heterosexual couples... what the hell do you think all the fuss is about?

I'm sorry, I didn't mean this as an insult, and tried to make that clear in my post. I see that you are from Sweden, and welcome your questions about the U.S. Please be assured that I did not use the word "trivial" as a bad thing.

Didn't take it as an offence. If I had been american I might have been, but then I would have been rather ignorant since I didn't know such a trivial thing about my own country. Rather just wanted to point out to you that I wasn't american, kindagot the feeling you thought so.

I said that gays aren't discriminated against like people say they are; what do the benefits you listed have to do with anything?

You could ofc argue like you do. But then you get cought, cause once intrarace-marriage wasn't alloweda few decades back, right? Now it is tho... And if I am right, then all the people had the exact same rights, to marry someone of thier own race.

Disclaimer, I don't believe in races, simply cause we differ way less when it comes to thinking etc. It's just our looks that differs the most. Altho, I read that recently this debate have been taken up as people from different parts on the world reacts differently against different diseases.

Good, now if we can just get them to follow the bible and what it tells us to do with the perverts!

yeah, and then establish only biblical marriage laws! you should be legally required to marry your brother's widow! fuck off you idiot.

By the way, the California Supreme Court just did gay people a favor. Now four thousand people with marriage liscenses are going to challenge the constitutionality of the law.

that's a good point.

That being said, I hate the law about Immunity from Testifying; one should have the option of testifying if they want to, but not be forced to (like in the Law & Order episode where the spouses themselves were the victims).


Just so you know, that is how it works. It is immunity from testifying, not disallowing testimony. Basically, since the government views you as a single entity, you can plead the 5th so as not to incriminate you or your spouse in a given issue. The courts cannot force you to testify against them. However, if you think your spouse did something wrong and deserves to go to jail, you can testify against them all you want.

On the whole state's rights vs. federal issue:

There are two major issues here and both sides of the argument are saying things that are right - because you aren't really arguing for the same thing.

Yes, the states decide who can get married and what they have to do to get the marriage license and all of that. That falls under state jurisdiction and they can all do so differently. If a state wanted to require counseling ahead of time, they can - if they want there to be a 6 week wait time, they can - and no other state has to follow those same rules. However, because DOMA (a federal law) is clearly unconstitutional, (a) because it breaks the full faith and credit clause and (b) because it involves discrimination based on sexual orientation, whatever marriage happens in one state must be recognized in another. There are no exceptions. So, all of the Mass. gay marriages have to be recognized in every other state if the couple moves there.
The other issue is that, while some may argue that since every state has the right to decide its own marriage law, any type of law that discriminates based on race, creed, color, or sex (which includes sexual orientation), it is unconstitutional according to the US Constitution. And no state law can hold that is unconstitutional. Therefore, while the issue is still a state's rights issue, the reason it cannot be done falls under federal law.

I said that gays aren't discriminated against like people say they are; what do the benefits you listed have to do with anything?

The "benefits" (and all of them aren't really benefits, per se) are the things that are afforded to married couples. Why are they afforded to married couples? Well, it is because those people have entwined their lives so much that anything else is horribly inconvenient to the government and the people involved. Now, sure, a gay person could *marry* a straight person - but the "benefits" wouldn't help them if it wasn't the person who they wanted to spend the rest of their life with and become one legal entity with!

Seriously, get your head out of your ass and think for just one second and you'll get it.

Just so you know, that is how it works. It is immunity from testifying, not disallowing testimony. Basically, since the government views you as a single entity, you can plead the 5th so as not to incriminate you or your spouse in a given issue. The courts cannot force you to testify against them. However, if you think your spouse did something wrong and deserves to go to jail, you can testify against them all you want.

On the whole state's rights vs. federal issue:

There are two major issues here and both sides of the argument are saying things that are right - because you aren't really arguing for the same thing.

Yes, the states decide who can get married and what they have to do to get the marriage license and all of that. That falls under state jurisdiction and they can all do so differently. If a state wanted to require counseling ahead of time, they can - if they want there to be a 6 week wait time, they can - and no other state has to follow those same rules. However, because DOMA (a federal law) is clearly unconstitutional, (a) because it breaks the full faith and credit clause and (b) because it involves discrimination based on sexual orientation, whatever marriage happens in one state must be recognized in another. There are no exceptions. So, all of the Mass. gay marriages have to be recognized in every other state if the couple moves there.
The other issue is that, while some may argue that since every state has the right to decide its own marriage law, any type of law that discriminates based on race, creed, color, or sex (which includes sexual orientation), it is unconstitutional according to the US Constitution. And no state law can hold that is unconstitutional. Therefore, while the issue is still a state's rights issue, the reason it cannot be done falls under federal law.
5th amendment is self incrimination, i'm pretty sure you would have to testify against a spouse


ok you have a point on the marriage thing, but the silver bullet point is that the state doesnt have to allow it's own people to get married, but the full faith and credit clause would still force it to recognize the marriages of gay people in other states

I respect California's soverignty to chose not to allow those marriages.

I respect California's soverignty to chose not to allow those marriages.

Agreed

5th amendment is self incrimination, i'm pretty sure you would have to testify against a spouse

I can't find anything that relates it directly to the 5th amenment, but it seems to basically be an extension of that right. Once married, the government views the couple as a single entity, so one spouse testifying against the other would, in effect, be just like self incrimination.

However, the actual use on this seems to be more based in common law. Basically, (except in intrafamily violence), a person cannot be forced to testify against their spouse. In some states, they specifically hold this to a one-time thing. That way, if the defendant is a repeat-offender, the spouse can only get out of testifying the first time. But the courts have held that a person cannot be forced to incriminate their spouse. Some places even will disallow a person from testifying against their spouse if the spouse chooses to bar it.

I applaude the ruling ot the CA supreme court against the illegal and unconstituitional actions of the lord major of San Francisco.

I applaude the ruling ot the CA supreme court against the illegal and unconstituitional actions of the lord major of San Francisco.

Lord major? If you are going to debate US issues, at least figure out the correct terms for them.

Lord major? If you are going to debate US issues, at least figure out the correct terms for them.

It was a joke Dempublicents! I saw the humor in it! LOL!

It was a joke Dempublicents! I saw the humor in it! LOL!

I doubt it. You would be hard-pressed to convince me that Kybernetia has a sense of humor.

I doubt it. You would be hard-pressed to convince me that Kybernetia has a sense of humor.

Ok so it was a sarcastic joke but I found it funny! LOL!!!

I applaude the ruling ot the CA supreme court against the illegal and unconstituitional actions of the lord major of San Francisco.
Are you going to be applauding when the CA Supreme Court eventually does overturn the laws banning same-sex marriage? All this ruling did was say that Newsom overstepped his bounds--it didn't address the actual merits of the same-sex movement, and in fact the ruling pretty much laid out a blueprint for a way to really challenge the laws in question. It's coming, sooner or later--might as well get ready for it Kybernetia. Will you be able to contain yourself when it does?

I'm proud of the California Supreme Court. And no, I'm not smoking anything because I never thought I would have said that, I just had to type that to remind myself.

You actually have a branch of the government that is actually doing what its supposed to do, shocker I know.

Its not like we would want liberals to follow the laws or anything, that would be asking too much. Thats why I'm glad the California Supreme Court stood up for the law.

Thats two straight defeats for you homosexuals, Missouri passed an amendment with 70% percent of the vote banning gay marriage and now California gay marriages have been anulled. Looks like you're in trouble now, with I think 11 other states with similar amendments on the ballot this November, I hope they all pass too. It would be a wonderful victory for the forces of morality and a terrible defeat for the forces of moral relativism.

I'll ask you, Unashamed Christians, since no one else has answered--what will you say when the CA Supreme Court--and eventually the US Supreme Court--finally overturns the bans on same-sex marriage, as will inevitably happen? You may as well try to sweep back the tide--same-sex marriage is coming, have no doubt about it. So when the Supreme Court of either the US or California do what Massachussetts' Supreme Court did and says that the Constitution bars discrimination against homosexuals, what will you say then? Will you laud their decision or will you fight to continue the open hatred of homosexuals? Will you follow Christ's call to "love one another just as the Christ loved you" or will you doggedly continue to follow your own petty hatreds?

yeah! lets FORCE people into believe stuff!

Heck, god doesn't exist, so accept it and live on.

Amazing how we narrow-minded and conservative christians can still debate an issue without coming off as utter dipshits (some of us at least). Also, do not pass go, do not collect $200, go back to grammer school, the proper word would be "believing." Or you could say, "Lets force people to believe stuff."

I'll ask you, Unashamed Christians, since no one else has answered--what will you say when the CA Supreme Court--and eventually the US Supreme Court--finally overturns the bans on same-sex marriage, as will inevitably happen? You may as well try to sweep back the tide--same-sex marriage is coming, have no doubt about it. So when the Supreme Court of either the US or California do what Massachussetts' Supreme Court did and says that the Constitution bars discrimination against homosexuals, what will you say then? Will you laud their decision or will you fight to continue the open hatred of homosexuals? Will you follow Christ's call to "love one another just as the Christ loved you" or will you doggedly continue to follow your own petty hatreds?
I'd imagine - if it does happen - it will be pretty far in the future so attitudes will have changed by then.

I'm proud of the California Supreme Court. And no, I'm not smoking anything because I never thought I would have said that, I just had to type that to remind myself.

You actually have a branch of the government that is actually doing what its supposed to do, shocker I know.

Its not like we would want liberals to follow the laws or anything, that would be asking too much. Thats why I'm glad the California Supreme Court stood up for the law.

Thats two straight defeats for you homosexuals, Missouri passed an amendment with 70% percent of the vote banning gay marriage and now California gay marriages have been anulled. Looks like you're in trouble now, with I think 11 other states with similar amendments on the ballot this November, I hope they all pass too. It would be a wonderful victory for the forces of morality and a terrible defeat for the forces of moral relativism.

Watch it or the leftist will label your beliefs as "hatred" just becuse they can't force their behaviors on you. Opps, too late.

Watch it or the leftist will label your beliefs as "hatred" just becuse they can't force their behaviors on you. Opps, too late.Discrimination against homosexuals is rooted either in fear or in hate, or in both--which is it going to be? Doesn't matter to me.

Well, that's very pissing-off of a development.

Fortunately I'm sitting comfortably in Multnomah County where, even though we're not marrying people anymore, the decision was that the already-performed marriages had to be recognized. :D

Discrimination against homosexuals is rooted either in fear or in hate, or in both--which is it going to be? Doesn't matter to me.
Discrimination against person who believe homosexuality is wrong is rooted either in fear or in hate, or in both--which is it going to be? Doesn't matter to me.

Discrimination against person who believe homosexuality is wrong is rooted either in fear or in hate, or in both--which is it going to be? Doesn't matter to me.

For Pete's sake, when was the last time you were actually discriminated against, let me repeat, DISCRIMINATED against, for believing homosexuality is wrong? If you have an answer to that, go look up discrimination in the dictionary. :rolleyes:

Well, that's very pissing-off of a development.

Fortunately I'm sitting comfortably in Multnomah County where, even though we're not marrying people anymore, the decision was that the already-performed marriages had to be recognized. :D
It'll be decided soon enough, won't it? The judge in Multnomah county sent it straight to the State Supreme Court, as I understand it, so you'll have a final decision before too terribly long.

For Pete's sake, when was the last time you were actually discriminated against, let me repeat, DISCRIMINATED against, for believing homosexuality is wrong? If you have an answer to that, go look up discrimination in the dictionary. :rolleyes:


It's that homophobe word. They hate that those silly homos. :D

For Pete's sake, when was the last time you were actually discriminated against, let me repeat, DISCRIMINATED against, for believing homosexuality is wrong? If you have an answer to that, go look up discrimination in the dictionary. :rolleyes:I am labeled a homophobe. Labeling is discrimintory.

I am labeled a homophobe. Labeling is discrimintory.

Labeling is IMMORAL!

I am labeled a homophobe. Labeling is discrimintory.
Being labeled doesn't preclude you from marrying the person who agrees to marry you, does it? Being homosexual does. Big difference there.

Being labeled doesn't preclude you from marrying the person who agrees to marry you, does it? Being homosexual does. Big difference there.
No being homosexual doesn't preclude you marrying the person who agrees to marry you. There are many other discriminations than those encountered by gays.

No being homosexual doesn't preclude you marrying the person who agrees to marry you. There are many other discriminations than those encountered by gays.
When did I ever suggest that only gays were discriminated against, or that this was the only discrimination suffered by either gays or any group? I'm merely saying that while your being labeled may indeed result in some discrimination, it has little if any real world effect, while discrimination against gays in terms of marriage has a very real effect in society. But go ahead--continue to look for ways for the big mean liberals to continue to martyr you and turn you into a victim .:rolleyes:

I am labeled a homophobe. Labeling is discrimintory.

So if I'm labelled as a human I'm being discriminated against?

I'd just like to mention that gay marriage is spreading from coast to coast to coast up here in Canada. The last time I bothered looking into it you could get married in (I believe) Ontario, Quebec, British Columbia, and Nunavut- or maybe that was Yukon. I dunno. The point is, we could use more people up here, so why not give the past a slip- c'mon up, get hitched if that's what you really want- and then, why not stick around and settle in?

It just seems unreal to us north of the border what's been going on down south these last few years. I wouldn't blame any of you who might be tempted to split over the extended freak-out that now seems to be day-to-day America.

I'd imagine - if it does happen - it will be pretty far in the future so attitudes will have changed by then.

If we look at civil rights in history, it's pretty safe to say it'll happen soon. And attitudes will slowly change over the next few generations after that. Luckily, on issues like this, the courts are often ahead of the majority opinion.