Quantcast

Subscribe to:
POZ magazine
E-newsletters
Join POZ: Facebook MySpace Twitter Pinterest
Tumblr Google+ Flickr MySpace
POZ Personals
Sign In / Join
Username:
Password:
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
July 22, 2014, 06:16:48 PM

Login with username, password and session length


Members
Stats
  • Total Posts: 631486
  • Total Topics: 47800
  • Online Today: 279
  • Online Ever: 585
  • (January 07, 2014, 02:31:47 PM)
Users Online

Welcome


Welcome to the POZ/AIDSmeds Community Forums, a round-the-clock discussion area for people with HIV/AIDS, their friends/family/caregivers, and others concerned about HIV/AIDS.  Click on the links below to browse our various forums; scroll down for a glance at the most recent posts; or join in the conversation yourself by registering on the left side of this page.

Privacy Warning:  Please realize that these forums are open to all, and are fully searchable via Google and other search engines. If you are HIV positive and disclose this in our forums, then it is almost the same thing as telling the whole world (or at least the World Wide Web). If this concerns you, then do not use a username or avatar that are self-identifying in any way. We do not allow the deletion of anything you post in these forums, so think before you post.

  • The information shared in these forums, by moderators and members, is designed to complement, not replace, the relationship between an individual and his/her own physician.

  • All members of these forums are, by default, not considered to be licensed medical providers. If otherwise, users must clearly define themselves as such.

  • Forums members must behave at all times with respect and honesty. Posting guidelines, including time-out and banning policies, have been established by the moderators of these forums. Click here for “Am I Infected?” posting guidelines. Click here for posting guidelines pertaining to all other POZ/AIDSmeds community forums.

  • We ask all forums members to provide references for health/medical/scientific information they provide, when it is not a personal experience being discussed. Please provide hyperlinks with full URLs or full citations of published works not available via the Internet. Additionally, all forums members must post information which are true and correct to their knowledge.

  • Product advertisement—including links; banners; editorial content; and clinical trial, study or survey participation—is strictly prohibited by forums members unless permission has been secured from POZ.

To change forums navigation language settings, click here (members only), Register now

Para cambiar sus preferencias de los foros en español, haz clic aquí (sólo miembros), Regístrate ahora

Finished Reading This? You can collapse this or any other box on this page by clicking the symbol in each box.

Author Topic: Unconstitutional happenings  (Read 9713 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline MoltenStorm

  • Member
  • Posts: 477
  • Poz & Fabulous
Re: Unconstitutional happenings
« Reply #50 on: August 21, 2007, 12:21:46 AM »
Not entirely true. There are historical cases of same-sex marriages in Roman times. To make such a broad statement as "there has always been a definition of marriage since the beginning of time; it's a union between one man and one woman" is a fallacy. Moreover, since when is tradition a substitution for law?

Marriage being defined as a union between a man and a woman only went on the books with the Defense of Marriage Act. Prior to that, there was no federal law defining marriage. So why were marriages of one state honored in the other states prior to the Defense of Marriage Act?

Why is it that you seem to be so against the possibility of gay marriage?

The only reason that Ohio would not be required to honor a Massachusettes marriage is because of the Defense of Marriage Act. That was the entire reason the DOMA was signed into law because States feared they would have to honor a same-sex marriage of another state. However, if the DOMA were ever struck down by the Supreme Court as being unconstitutional, where would those states turn then?
"Love is always patient and kind. It is never jealous. Love is never boastful nor conceited. It is never rude or selfish. It does not take offense and is not resentful. Love takes no pleasure in other people's sins, but delights in the truth. It is always ready to excuse, to trust, to hope, and to endure whatever comes." - 1 Corinthians 13:4-7, adaptation in A Walk To Remember

CD4: 555 / 29% / Undetectable - 7 Nov 2006
CD4: 555 / 29% / Undetectable - 5 Feb 2007

Offline libvet

  • Member
  • Posts: 327
Re: Unconstitutional happenings
« Reply #51 on: August 21, 2007, 12:25:05 AM »
There has always been a definition of marriage since the beginning of time. It's a union between one man and one woman. That is a federal law and each state will honor it. It's not the same as same sex marriages or civil unions, it's not Federal and NO other State has to honor it. If you believe that to be untrue, go to Mass get married and come to Ohio and see if your marriage is legal and binding.

Well, no.  The definition of marriage is not a static thing. Sometimes it was between a man and many women.  In the current time frame, the definition of marriage could go anywhere across the board from marriage between a man and several women or a man and a woman or a man and man or woman and woman.

I rather think that the gay people in Canada, Massachusetts, Belgium, The Netherlands, South Africa and Spain certainly consider themselves married since it is recognized there.   Israel, Aruba, and the Dutch Antilles recognize gay marriages performed in other countries.

I find it interesting however that in a land that not too long ago was known for it's Aparthied, gay marriage is now legal, whereas in the so-called "Land of the Freedom" and the "Beacon of Liberty" it's just too much work for gay marriage to every become the law of the land.

Online RapidRod

  • Member
  • Posts: 15,273
Re: Unconstitutional happenings
« Reply #52 on: August 21, 2007, 12:35:16 AM »
libvet, there you go again. I don't believe Canada, Belgium, Netherlands, South Africa or Spain fall within the guidelines of the US Constitution unless they would become citizens here and then they would have to uphold the Constitution of the United States.

Online RapidRod

  • Member
  • Posts: 15,273
Re: Unconstitutional happenings
« Reply #53 on: August 21, 2007, 12:49:28 AM »
Quote
Why is it that you seem to be so against the possibility of gay marriage?
Nowhere in any of my posts did I say I was against gay marriage. (reread them all) We were discussing laws I do believe. You were saying that one state would have to honor another states laws, which is a complete fallacy.

Offline libvet

  • Member
  • Posts: 327
Re: Unconstitutional happenings
« Reply #54 on: August 21, 2007, 12:58:33 AM »
libvet, there you go again. I don't believe Canada, Belgium, Netherlands, South Africa or Spain fall within the guidelines of the US Constitution unless they would become citizens here and then they would have to uphold the Constitution of the United States.

And I don't believe that United States owns the definition of what marriage means for the world and throughout history and if they can decide that it's ok for gays to marry, there is no any real reason to doubt it could happen here.

I imagine some people around the time of the first world war were telling women that they ought to just accept their lot in life as chattel and give up their silly notions of women voting.  I'm pretty sure most women are happy those women didn't listen to the "that's the way it is and always has been and always will be" people.

Offline bocker3

  • Member
  • Posts: 3,357
  • You gotta enjoy life......
Re: Unconstitutional happenings
« Reply #55 on: August 21, 2007, 07:39:05 AM »
Nowhere in any of my posts did I say I was against gay marriage. (reread them all) We were discussing laws I do believe. You were saying that one state would have to honor another states laws, which is a complete fallacy.
Rod,
Actually, the Full Faith clause isn't saying that one state has to honor another state's LAW, it is stating that it has to honor another state's "Public acts, Records and Judicial proceedings".  Meaning that if Virginia grants me a driving license, I can drive in Ohio (although, I have to follow Ohio's speed limit, not Virginia's).  It means if someone is legally married in Virginia, they remain married in Ohio. It means if a judge grants custody of a minor child to a parent in Virginia, the other parent can't go to Ohio and have it overturned (this particular case has been going on between two women who had a Civil Union in Vermont and when they split the VT court ordered visitation rights to the non-biological mother.  The mother came to VA and got a court to void it, but on appeal, it was ruled that VT had jurisdiction and VA had to abide by the VT decision).
Think how crazy it would be if a state could say that you need to get a license from them in order to drive thru their state or if anytime someone moved, they needed to get "remarried" or have divorces "redone".  So, stop confusing the issue by talking about LAWS -- we are NOT talking about states having to abide by another state's law.

Mike
Atripla - Started 12/05
Reyataz/Norvir - Added 6/06
Labs - Pre-Meds
Sep05 T=350/25% VL98,559
Nov05 288/18%  47,564
Current Labs
May2013 691/31% <20

Offline MoltenStorm

  • Member
  • Posts: 477
  • Poz & Fabulous
Re: Unconstitutional happenings
« Reply #56 on: August 21, 2007, 08:41:24 AM »
Ok, my mistake. I misused the term "law" in my original post. I would think you'd have been able to see my point though, but whatever. Mike said it perfectly.

My point still stands. Marriage is a public act of record and as such is required by the Constitution to be upheld in the sister states. However, DOMA puts a restriction on that. Can we get through the trees and see the forest now? I'm giving on the full faith clause since the second half of said clause does grant Congress the right to legislate 'how' those public acts, records, and judicial proceedings are upheld.

DOMA (the federal law) violates the Equal Protection Clause (14th Amendment) as well as Due Process (5th Amendment) since "the right to marry" was established as a fundamental right by the Supreme Court in Loving vs Virginia. It doesn't matter that it was a heterosexual marriage. If they deemed marriage a fundamental right, it is a right that all citizens are entitled to.

A fundamental right is defined as a right that has its origin in a country's constitution or that is necessarily implied from the terms of that constitution.
« Last Edit: August 21, 2007, 08:48:54 AM by MoltenStorm »
"Love is always patient and kind. It is never jealous. Love is never boastful nor conceited. It is never rude or selfish. It does not take offense and is not resentful. Love takes no pleasure in other people's sins, but delights in the truth. It is always ready to excuse, to trust, to hope, and to endure whatever comes." - 1 Corinthians 13:4-7, adaptation in A Walk To Remember

CD4: 555 / 29% / Undetectable - 7 Nov 2006
CD4: 555 / 29% / Undetectable - 5 Feb 2007

Offline MoltenStorm

  • Member
  • Posts: 477
  • Poz & Fabulous
Re: Unconstitutional happenings
« Reply #57 on: August 21, 2007, 09:11:47 AM »
A few other "fundamental rights" are:

Right to life 
Right to procreate
Right to raise children free from unnecessary governmental interference
Right to freedom of association
Right to freedom of expression
Right to equality of treatment before the law (fair legal procedures)
Right to freedom of thought
Right to religious belief
Right to choose when and where to acquire formal education
Right to pursue happiness
Right to vote
Right to Freedom of contract
"Love is always patient and kind. It is never jealous. Love is never boastful nor conceited. It is never rude or selfish. It does not take offense and is not resentful. Love takes no pleasure in other people's sins, but delights in the truth. It is always ready to excuse, to trust, to hope, and to endure whatever comes." - 1 Corinthians 13:4-7, adaptation in A Walk To Remember

CD4: 555 / 29% / Undetectable - 7 Nov 2006
CD4: 555 / 29% / Undetectable - 5 Feb 2007

Online RapidRod

  • Member
  • Posts: 15,273
Re: Unconstitutional happenings
« Reply #58 on: August 21, 2007, 09:33:52 AM »
Rod,
Actually, the Full Faith clause isn't saying that one state has to honor another state's LAW, it is stating that it has to honor another state's "Public acts, Records and Judicial proceedings".  Meaning that if Virginia grants me a driving license, I can drive in Ohio (although, I have to follow Ohio's speed limit, not Virginia's).  It means if someone is legally married in Virginia, they remain married in Ohio. It means if a judge grants custody of a minor child to a parent in Virginia, the other parent can't go to Ohio and have it overturned (this particular case has been going on between two women who had a Civil Union in Vermont and when they split the VT court ordered visitation rights to the non-biological mother.  The mother came to VA and got a court to void it, but on appeal, it was ruled that VT had jurisdiction and VA had to abide by the VT decision).
Think how crazy it would be if a state could say that you need to get a license from them in order to drive thru their state or if anytime someone moved, they needed to get "remarried" or have divorces "redone".  So, stop confusing the issue by talking about LAWS -- we are NOT talking about states having to abide by another state's law.

Mike

Mike, I wasn't confusing the laws at all. Yes we were talking about states having to abide by another state's laws. I have no idea what you are talking about. I believe this thread had to deal with same sex marriages. The example I used was speed limits nothing more. NO State has to honor another state's laws on same sex marriages and they don't. That is what we were discussing.
Quote
we are NOT talking about states having to abide by another state's law.
Mike you just jumped into this thread, so YOU weren't discussing anything. I believe the discussion that was going on was between Storm and myself. I'm ending my part in this thread. It's not a Federal Law.

Offline Iggy

  • Member
  • Posts: 2,435
Re: Unconstitutional happenings
« Reply #59 on: August 21, 2007, 10:25:36 AM »
I think you are all insane to be perfectly honest.

Now excuse me while I go get fitted for my powder blue tuxedo, white snakeskin shoes and ruffled shirt...I am getting married.

Offline bocker3

  • Member
  • Posts: 3,357
  • You gotta enjoy life......
Re: Unconstitutional happenings
« Reply #60 on: August 21, 2007, 08:38:48 PM »
Mike, I wasn't confusing the laws at all. Yes we were talking about states having to abide by another state's laws. I have no idea what you are talking about. I believe this thread had to deal with same sex marriages. The example I used was speed limits nothing more. NO State has to honor another state's laws on same sex marriages and they don't. That is what we were discussing.

There was NO law passed in Massachusetts giving same sex couples the right to marry.  The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ruled that under the state constitution, Mass. could not discriminate against them, if straight couples can marry, then gay couples must be able to do so.  THe only changes, I believe, that were made to any laws and/or regulations was to make marriage gender neutral.  So, by our Federal Constitution (which trumps all State's Constitutions), other state's should honor Massachusetts Marriage Licenses for ALL marriages.  It is not law here, it is a license that grants a couple the rights and responsibilities of marriage.

Mike you just jumped into this thread, so YOU weren't discussing anything. I believe the discussion that was going on was between Storm and myself. I'm ending my part in this thread. It's not a Federal Law.
Are you really 9 years old here  ??? ?  I may have "overstepped" by saying "we", but I have been following this thread since the beginning and only jumped in hoping that you would take logic from someone else a little more openly, but I see that you have simply drawn a line in the sand and will not be driven to distraction from your ideas by mere facts.  I am open to being wrong if you actually explain how the Full Faith Clause doesn't apply here (and Molten has said they same thing).  You refuse to do this and they only reason I can come up with is that you can not, so much like the current occupant of the White House, you will simply say the same thing over and over and assume that this will make it so.

Mike

Atripla - Started 12/05
Reyataz/Norvir - Added 6/06
Labs - Pre-Meds
Sep05 T=350/25% VL98,559
Nov05 288/18%  47,564
Current Labs
May2013 691/31% <20

Offline MoltenStorm

  • Member
  • Posts: 477
  • Poz & Fabulous
Re: Unconstitutional happenings
« Reply #61 on: August 21, 2007, 08:40:10 PM »
Quote
Mike, I wasn't confusing the laws at all. Yes we were talking about states having to abide by another state's laws. I have no idea what you are talking about. I believe this thread had to deal with same sex marriages. The example I used was speed limits nothing more. NO State has to honor another state's laws on same sex marriages and they don't. That is what we were discussing.

No, we weren't. You and I were actually arguing apples to oranges. I was discussing why the DOMA is unconstitutional, and you were arguing that states don't have to adhere to other states' laws. You are correct in your argument, but I made a mistake in my original post and used the term "law" mistakenly. I was then interpreting your answers as somehow claiming that the Full Faith clause didn't apply to marriages (a public act, record, and judicial proceeding) when you were saying laws. Big mess.

Now to get back onto the right track here. My thesis of this thread was that the DOMA is unconstitutional. Can we get back to that now?
« Last Edit: August 21, 2007, 08:41:48 PM by MoltenStorm »
"Love is always patient and kind. It is never jealous. Love is never boastful nor conceited. It is never rude or selfish. It does not take offense and is not resentful. Love takes no pleasure in other people's sins, but delights in the truth. It is always ready to excuse, to trust, to hope, and to endure whatever comes." - 1 Corinthians 13:4-7, adaptation in A Walk To Remember

CD4: 555 / 29% / Undetectable - 7 Nov 2006
CD4: 555 / 29% / Undetectable - 5 Feb 2007

Offline pozguy75

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,239
    • POZitively Speaking
Re: Unconstitutional happenings
« Reply #62 on: August 21, 2007, 08:48:40 PM »
I think you are all insane to be perfectly honest.

Now excuse me while I go get fitted for my powder blue tuxedo, white snakeskin shoes and ruffled shirt...I am getting married.

Oh no you are NOT!!! You and I will need to discuss appropriate wedding fashion...uh, uhn mister!
Dx 2005
ATRIPLA

Offline libvet

  • Member
  • Posts: 327
Re: Unconstitutional happenings
« Reply #63 on: August 21, 2007, 09:12:03 PM »
Truth to tell, given that SCOTUS is the de facto interpreter of the constitution, even though by all rights and precedents, DOMA should be considered unconstitutional, activist right-wing judges like Thomas, Alito, Scalia, and Roberts will either declare it's perfectly constitutional or decline to hear any challenge to DOMA (and thereby secure their place in embarrassing moments in American history along side the Supreme Court that issued the Dredd Scott decision that said people of African descent could not be citizens of the United States).

Sadly, even when the White House is finally fumigated from the trash that currently occupies it, we will have to deal with the repercussions for many many years to come and one of those is this court.

It doesn't however follow that we should throw in the towel.   Anything worth having is worth fighting for and while certain members of our community may not have the spinal fortitude to continue this battle, I will not be one of those who gives up.

The attitude we should take is the attitude portrayed in Iron Jawed Angels with the women's suffrage movement.

Offline thunter34

  • Member
  • Posts: 7,302
  • His name is Carl.
Re: Unconstitutional happenings
« Reply #64 on: August 21, 2007, 09:19:03 PM »
A tie-in thread I started awhile back.  For further reading if anyone is interested:

http://forums.poz.com/index.php?topic=10439.0
AIDS isn't for sissies.

Offline MoltenStorm

  • Member
  • Posts: 477
  • Poz & Fabulous
Re: Unconstitutional happenings
« Reply #65 on: August 22, 2007, 08:02:58 AM »
Quote
Truth to tell, given that SCOTUS is the de facto interpreter of the constitution, even though by all rights and precedents, DOMA should be considered unconstitutional, activist right-wing judges like Thomas, Alito, Scalia, and Roberts will either declare it's perfectly constitutional or decline to hear any challenge to DOMA (and thereby secure their place in embarrassing moments in American history along side the Supreme Court that issued the Dredd Scott decision that said people of African descent could not be citizens of the United States).

So far, the Supreme Court has declined to hear any cases against the DOMA. That's where (forgive the biblical reference) a "mother with the judge" mindset can be played. (A mother in the old testament wanted justice for her son, but a judge wouldn't hear her case. Therefore, she daily went to his door and asked for justice. One day, he finally did just to get her to go away.) If we keep bringing it up, they will eventually hear it. DOMA flies in the face of the principles this country was founded on - justice, liberty, equality, and freedom "from" religion.

PS - I laughed when I got to the Dredd Scott allusion. Excellent choice.
"Love is always patient and kind. It is never jealous. Love is never boastful nor conceited. It is never rude or selfish. It does not take offense and is not resentful. Love takes no pleasure in other people's sins, but delights in the truth. It is always ready to excuse, to trust, to hope, and to endure whatever comes." - 1 Corinthians 13:4-7, adaptation in A Walk To Remember

CD4: 555 / 29% / Undetectable - 7 Nov 2006
CD4: 555 / 29% / Undetectable - 5 Feb 2007

Offline MoltenStorm

  • Member
  • Posts: 477
  • Poz & Fabulous
Re: Unconstitutional happenings
« Reply #66 on: August 22, 2007, 08:10:08 AM »
DOMA also violates the First Amendment which states, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. In passing the DOMA, they are respecting the religious definition of marriage. Therefore, they passed a law respecting the establishment of religion - Christianity to be more precise.
"Love is always patient and kind. It is never jealous. Love is never boastful nor conceited. It is never rude or selfish. It does not take offense and is not resentful. Love takes no pleasure in other people's sins, but delights in the truth. It is always ready to excuse, to trust, to hope, and to endure whatever comes." - 1 Corinthians 13:4-7, adaptation in A Walk To Remember

CD4: 555 / 29% / Undetectable - 7 Nov 2006
CD4: 555 / 29% / Undetectable - 5 Feb 2007

 


Terms of Membership for these forums
 

© 2014 Smart + Strong. All Rights Reserved.   terms of use and your privacy
Smart + Strong® is a registered trademark of CDM Publishing, LLC.