Unconstitutional happenings

[MoltenStorm]

Why is the DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) allowed to continue to be on the books when it violates the Good Faith Clause of the Constitution? Any state law must be honored by the Sister states. I've, personally, settled on that those that would take DOMA to court don't want to run the risk of the possible backlash - a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage (read: re-attempt). According to the Constitution, however, any marriage performed in Massachusettes should be given full weight in any sister state REGARDLESS of their laws.

Anyone notice that the village idiot (read: Bush) got into office in the first place by violating the Constitution? According to the Constitution, the House of Representatives is to decide who will be president in the event that the Electoral College can't come to a decision - not a Federal court in Florida. I find it kind of fishy that ol' Bushie boy's brother just so happened to be Governor in that state - coincidently of course.

[thunter34]

for that matter, who says marriage is strictly the domain of religious ceremony?  hello?  justice of the peace anyone?  straight people can get hitched by an elvis impersonator in vegas.  gimme a break already.

[tester8888]

As if it weren't enough to pass laws that make any perchance of marriage unreachable by us gay bois, some states like Arkansas, has added degrees of marriage to the books.  Soon after the "ammendment to protect marriage" was passed (with voters going into churches to vote with propaganda all over the walls--an obvious violation), Arkansas passed a law creating a Covenental Marriage, were upon our fine (puke) govenor and now presidential hopeful (double puke) staged a mass ceremony Rev. Moon style at Alltel arena, and rubbed the defeat of civil liberties in the faces of us gay people.  It's not the gay people destroying marriages, it's the str8 ones.  I have an aunt that collects last names for gawds sakes!  I like to think that me and my ex would still be together if we had been married.  I always enjoyed wearing my wedding ring, but lamented when some str8 person would always say, "oh, you get to wear a ring even though it's not a recognized marriage"!?  WTF!  I can't even wear jewelery without a comment!?  Gotta love the South and the Bible Belt.

[milker]

I wouldn't be surprised that Arkansas allows dog marriage though.

Milker.

[tester8888]

They actually had advertisements that said "What's next?  We allow people to marry animals?"  or another favorite "Sould the state sanction marriages between animals?".....and it showed 2 dogs dressed in wedding garb trying to get married.    Errrrrrrrrrrrrrr!!!!!!!   What's worse, is the old people, like my grandma, will interchange the words pedophile and homosexual (pronounced:  hom-a-sect-you-all) when talking.  It burns me up!
Our response, was to put up billboards of gay couples here in Arkansas that were doing service to their country/state.  Millitary men and etc.  I posed for one with my bf, wearing my Paramedic uniform, but we ran out of money and could only put up 3 of them.

[thunter34]

ours here pronounce it like "homo-seks-shull".

and i'm over the whole thing on a grand scale.  what really burns my burger is this:

our country is supposed to operate under an "innocent UNLESS (not UNTIL, please- that presumes eventual guilt) proven guilty".  yet when it comes to any issue involving gay people, the burden is on US to show that we AREN'T detrimental to society, that are relationships- hell, our lives ARE valid and our relationships ARE worthy to be taken as dignified.

and why?  because some very popular cults say no.  what establishes the line between "religion" and "cult" anyway? 

numbers.  numbers of followers and thus numbers of dollars from their coffers.

if it weren't so, there shouldn't be any good reason we couldn't establish our own religious faith and practice protected ceremonies under the constitutional protections afforded religious freedoms.  but there seems to be a popular vote to decide which tales qualify for the illustrious "true belief system" tags.

[milker]

well my puppy tried to mount a 7 year lab. There is evil in animal kingdom too.

Milker.

[tester8888]

ours here pronounce it like "homo-seks-shull".

and i'm over the whole thing on a grand scale.  what really burns my burger is this:

our country is supposed to operate under an "innocent UNLESS (not UNTIL, please- that presumes eventual guilt) proven guilty".  yet when it comes to any issue involving gay people, the burden is on US to show that we AREN'T detrimental to society, that are relationships- hell, our lives ARE valid and our relationships ARE worthy to be taken as dignified.

and why?  because some very popular cults say no.  what establishes the line between "religion" and "cult" anyway? 

numbers.  numbers of followers and thus numbers of dollars from their coffers.

if it weren't so, there shouldn't be any good reason we couldn't establish our own religious faith and practice protected ceremonies under the constitutional protections afforded religious freedoms.  but there seems to be a popular vote to decide which tales qualify for the illustrious "true belief system" tags.

You are exactly right!   I took 24 hours in coursework towards a degree in Comparative Theology.  The Bible that I purchased for the class, "The Harper Collins Study Bible, New Revised Standard Version", put out by the "Society of Biblical Literature", always refers to all ceremony and beliefs, whether Jewish or Christian, as "cult".  Because, it is a cult, and the only reason that it is so popular is because the Romans conquered the majority of the world which we were all colonized from, and emperor Constantine claimed to have this vision from the Judeo-Christian god in order to win over favor with subjects he needed to fight in his army.  "Mystics and Messiahs" by Phillip Jenkins is also a good resource on this.   LOL.   Found Jason's soapbox here did we.

[MoltenStorm]

What really pisses me off is how the Republican party for the last 10 years has blurred the line separating church and state. I am an avid supporter of religion having NO place in government. If someone wants to have a religion in their own personal life, great. Do NOT bring into the Oval Office, Congressional Floor, or Court Bench. You might as well start calling us the Theocracy of the United States nowadays.

They put their hand on the Bible and swear to uphold the Constitution - not the other way around.

What cracks me up though is that they had the exact same reaction when interracial marriages came on the scene.

[RapidRod]

Why is the DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) allowed to continue to be on the books when it violates the Good Faith Clause of the Constitution? Any state law must be honored by the Sister states. I've, personally, settled on that those that would take DOMA to court don't want to run the risk of the possible backlash - a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage (read: re-attempt). According to the Constitution, however, any marriage performed in Massachusettes should be given full weight in any sister state REGARDLESS of their laws.

Anyone notice that the village idiot (read: Bush) got into office in the first place by violating the Constitution? According to the Constitution, the House of Representatives is to decide who will be president in the event that the Electoral College can't come to a decision - not a Federal court in Florida. I find it kind of fishy that ol' Bushie boy's brother just so happened to be Governor in that state - coincidently of course.

"Should be" and "MUST" are two totally different meanings. No state can regulate the laws of another state. Nor does another state have to uphold another states's law. The only time they do, is when it is a federal law.

[thunter34]

What really pisses me off is how the Republican party for the last 10 years has blurred the line separating church and state. I am an avid supporter of religion having NO place in government. If someone wants to have a religion in their own personal life, great. Do NOT bring into the Oval Office, Congressional Floor, or Court Bench. You might as well start calling us the Theocracy of the United States nowadays.

They put their hand on the Bible and swear to uphold the Constitution - not the other way around.

What cracks me up though is that they had the exact same reaction when interracial marriages came on the scene.

I'm all for yanking "In God We Trust" off the currency and "Under God" out of the pledge, too.  Many will say that makes me a godless heathen.

No, a patriot.

It's not an anti-religious sentiment that makes me support that position.  It's because I really do love this country and its Constitution.

[MoltenStorm]

Full faith and credit shall be given in each State to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other State.

"Shall be" doesn't translate into "should be." It translates into "must." Marriage is a "public act" and "record" of another state.

[MoltenStorm]

I agree, Thunter. While I'm all for someone having belief, that belief has no place in government.

[RapidRod]

Full faith and credit shall be given in each State to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other State.

"Shall be" doesn't translate into "should be." It translates into "must." Marriage is a "public act" and "record" of another state.

"Shall be" isn't the same as "should be". But that was not what was quoted.

According to the Constitution, however, any marriage performed in Massachusettes should be given full weight in any sister state REGARDLESS of their laws.

And again, what laws govern in one State is not automatic in another, unless it is a Federal Law. The laws of Gay marriage in Mass are not binding in other States because it is not a Federal Law. Now other States that allow gay marriage may recognize Mass. State law, but they are not under any jurisdiction to do so.

[tester8888]

The Arkansas Ammendment to Protect Marriage has a nice little inclusion that ensures our good folks, that Arkansas Constitution will not recognize any marriage or arrangement that resembles marriage between any parties exclusive of 1 man and 1 woman.  They wanted to be sure that our otherwise liberal contiguous adjudication practices didn't let any homo's slip through the cracks.  Many states have followed suit. Here, we can't even enter into a LLP to protect our assests and etc.  It's really a great place to be.

[MoltenStorm]

According to the Constitution, however, any marriage performed in Massachusettes should be given full weight in any sister state REGARDLESS of their laws.


And again, what laws govern in one State is not automatic in another, unless it is a Federal Law. The laws of Gay marriage in Mass are not binding in other States because it is not a Federal Law. Now other States that allow gay marriage may recognize Mass. State law, but they are not under any jurisdiction to do so.

You misquoted me, sir. My use of the phrase "should be" was in reference to the fact that they aren't, presently.

The Constitution, dear sir, is a federal law in and of itself. What laws govern in one state shall be respected in the other states regardless of any differing laws in the sister states per the Good Faith Clause. Therefore, the Defense of Marriage Act is a blatant violation of said clause. Therefore, any marriage granted in Mass. must be respected in the Sister states. However, since DOMA has been allowed to stand, the states are under the misguided impression that they don't have to even though the Constitution (which is higher than any other Federal Law) says they in fact do.

Molten
(who is a die-hard Constitutionalist)

[libvet]

"Shall be" isn't the same as "should be". But that was not what was quoted.
And again, what laws govern in one State is not automatic in another, unless it is a Federal Law. The laws of Gay marriage in Mass are not binding in other States because it is not a Federal Law. Now other States that allow gay marriage may recognize Mass. State law, but they are not under any jurisdiction to do so.

But they should be in that particular case.  This issue was fought once before in Loving vs. Commonwealth of Virginia.

In a nutshell, Mildred Jeter (a black woman) and Richard Loving (a white man) were residents of Virginia and went to DC and got married.  On their return to Virginia, they were charged with violating the states anti-miscegenation law and sentenced to a year in jail.  The sentence was suspended on the condition that they moved out of the state.  Later the Supreme Court ruled that anti-miscegenation laws were unconstitutional and violated the 14th amendment (it was a unanimous decision).

And of course, if you are 14 years old and marry in Alabama and you move to South Dakota where people under the age of 16 are not allowed to get married, your marriage isn't annulled by the state of South Dakota.

It is a sad reality, but more often than not, the phrase "state's rights" tends to be the mantra of those who codify their prejudices, but think nothing of trying to change the constitution to override another what another state did.  A good example would be Mass. allowing gay marriage.  Suddenly state's rights became a non-issue as they tried to pass their bigotry amendment to the constitution.  So, I'm a bit leery of anyone playing the state's rights card.

[RapidRod]

http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode01/usc_sec_01_00000007----000-.html

United States Code
TITLE 1 > CHAPTER 1 > § 7. Definition of “marriage” and “spouse”
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word “marriage” means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word “spouse” refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.

(Added Pub. L. 104-199, Sec. 3(a), Sept. 21, 1996, 110 Stat. 2419.)

[MoltenStorm]

Give me a legal document that means something, Rod. A website from a university is hardly worth commenting on.

[RapidRod]

http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t01t04+9673+2++%28Marriage%29%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20

There you go read it for yourself.

edited to add.

 http://frwebgate1.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate.cgi?WAISdocID=571881306749+15+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve

[thunter34]

Rod,

I can't help but notice from your posts- you almost seem to be cheering this.  Are you full on in favor of keeping same sex marriages illegal or what?

Or is it all just the semantics involved?

[MoltenStorm]

I was wondering that too, Thunter. I would hate to think that there are gay people who agree with being treated like second-class citizens. Marriage has already been defined by the Supreme Court as being a natural right, so it's just a matter of time before society, as a whole, is open to the idea.

Rod,

There we go. However, said code is not untouchable by the Supreme Court - if they ever choose to hear a case on it. The last couple of times, they've declined to hear the cases. I still think it's possible as time goes on. It may be a few years/decades, but it's still possible.

[RapidRod]

I'm neither in favor nor against marriage laws. Molten posted something that was incorrect and I posted how the law really reads. Until that law is "changed" it stands as is. Realistically, I don't see an amendment ever being put on the ballot and passing to change the Constitution of The U.S. as to the definition of marriage. Each State has a right to change it's laws as to how it perceives "marriage," but to have the benefits of that State law one would have to live in that State or a State that has a similar law. It's not a Federal Law and the laws of one State do not have to be recognized by any other State. 

[MoltenStorm]

I did not post something incorrect. Someone just needs to brush up on their constitution reading. I'm sorry, but you're wrong, Rod. The constitution speaks for itself.

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.

It does go on to say that "the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof." However, you didn't say that.

Read up on your Constitution. Then, make a claim that I'm posting incorrect jibberish. Until then, bite me.

[MoltenStorm]

The Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution obligates states to give "Full Faith and Credit ... to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State." The Effects Clause (Art IV, § 1) grants Congress the authority to "prescribe the manner in which such acts, records and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof." It is argued that DOMA is Congress overreaching its authority. That being said, the law is not immune to judicial review. However, there are other ways this law is unconstitutional.

The Fourteenth Amendment states in Section 1, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. This is commonly referred to as the Equal Protections Clause.

The Fifth Amendment states, "nor [shall any person] be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law".

The Supreme Court deemed marriage a fundamental right in Loving vs Virginia in 1967.

[MoltenStorm]

By the way, Rod, what you're quoting is the DOMA.

Powers reserved to the states:
No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.

Definition of 'marriage' and 'spouse':
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word ‘marriage’ means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word ‘spouse’ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.

Since that is the law in question, it is inadmissible in this debate.

[RapidRod]

You are off base. Look of the definiation on "marriage." You site Loving vs Virginia in 1967, which had nothing to do with marriage of same sex, but marriage between a man and a woman of different race. You have no arguement here Storm, no matter which way you want to twist it.

[woodshere]

Same sex marriage ain't gonna happen, no way no how.  Rather than push for it I think efforts should be made in getting things we want.  In Ky we have some sort of Defense of Marriage Constitutional Amendment.  The 2 major state supported universities offered domestic partner benefits, but that was found to violate the amendment, so they now have health benefits available to one individual, regardless of who it is, that lives in the same household as the employee.  It was a creative way that same sex couples now have healthcare for both.  If I had a partner I would much rather have healthcare coverage for him, than a piece of paper saying we are married.  Some may think this is second class status, but not me, as I would have the same thing that my coworker has.

Woods

[thunter34]

What's really rich in all of this is how the Defense of Marriage Brigade supposedly hold marriage up in such high esteem- yet essentially reduces it to just a question of genitalia.

A trans male can be in a gay relationship with another guy and get married without a hitch- as long as he still has the female equipment.  If he gets the surgery, his union is nullified.

The whole thing takes the question of love right out of the picture. 

Another amusement is how much this "sanctity of marriage" is espoused by the religious right...who conveniently forget that most of the figures of note in the Bible had harems with which they begat & begat & begat their litters of kids.

But one of the biggest insults is how often this sanctity is hollered about by men on wife number 3 or 4 already.

[Iggy]

I just love the whole title: "Defense of Marriage"

I wonder if I can get freedom fries with that?

[woodshere]

What's really rich in all of this is how the Defense of Marriage Brigade supposedly hold marriage up in such high esteem- yet essentially reduces it to just a question of genitalia.

A trans male can be in a gay relationship with another guy and get married without a hitch- as long as he still has the female equipment.  If he gets the surgery, his union is nullified.

The whole thing takes the question of love right out of the picture. 

Another amusement is how much this "sanctity of marriage" is espoused by the religious right...who conveniently forget that most of the figures of note in the Bible had harems with which they begat & begat & begat their litters of kids.

But one of the biggest insults is how often this sanctity is hollered about by men on wife number 3 or 4 already.

Well said and so true!!!

[jack]

You cant always get what you want,but sometimes you can get what you need.
Is there a Democrat candidate for President who supports gay marriage? Didnt think so.
It hard to take anyone seriously who really believes that Bush stole elections.
It appears that the Liberals have accomplished part of their goal, after thirty years they have demolished our educational system to the point products of that educational system will believe Bush starts and directs hurricanes,that Bush wants to kill US citizens by global warming,they believe anything Algore says about global warming, they believe that humans can predict or control the earths temperature,Bush is the cause of a bridge collapsing in Minnesota.

[ademas]

actually...no Jack.
Bush isn't smart enough to accomplish any of those things.
Everyone knows it was Rove and Cheney.
 

[pozniceguy]

now  , now  play nice    election year is coming up , so pay attention to the candidates and be sure to inflict some of these issues/ questions on them as they campaign.....ask direct questions in writing to the candidate...you all have access to computers.....carefully note the answers before you vote....do not assume one speaks for all...

Nick

[libvet]

You cant always get what you want,but sometimes you can get what you need.
Is there a Democrat candidate for President who supports gay marriage? Didnt think so.
It hard to take anyone seriously who really believes that Bush stole elections.
It appears that the Liberals have accomplished part of their goal, after thirty years they have demolished our educational system to the point products of that educational system will believe Bush starts and directs hurricanes,that Bush wants to kill US citizens by global warming,they believe anything Algore says about global warming, they believe that humans can predict or control the earths temperature,Bush is the cause of a bridge collapsing in Minnesota.

Well, yes.  There are two actually that support gay marriage unequivocally: Kucinich and Sharpton.  And the majority of them at least support civil unions, which is more than you can say the vast majority of republicans.  I think it's pretty clear, when it comes to equality for GLBT citizens, the republican party proposes nothing but a return to the days of sodomy laws and lies and closets.  So it shouldn't be a surprise that most gay people don't really care much for the party that uses them as a boogieman (or if you want really bizarre unscientific claims, the notion that gays are responsible for 9/11 and destroy families).

And no one is going to take you seriously Jack if you repeat idiocies like liberals believe Bush starts hurricanes.  It was VERY clear that the criticism of Bush with regards to natural disasters was on the topic of preparedness and response and was based on his complete failure in that respect.  To claim people were blaming Bush for the actual hurricane itself is the height of intellectual dishonesty and I think we both know that.   That kind of bizarre and unrealistic interpretation of the criticism leveled at the Bush administration may play well with the Fox "News" contingent and the Hannitized Rushbots, but Bush doesn't have a consistently low approval rating because someone has brainwashed the public.  Hell, even Fox News puts his approval rating in the high 20's to low 30's (and oddly, the oft-claimed liberal bastion of CNN has his approval ratings higher than Fox "News" polls currently does).

And if you don't believe diverting tax money to ill-advised adventures in the Middle East at the expense of our infrastructure is likely to cause problems with maintaining a safe infrastructure, then there probably isn't much hope for you.  It's like saying "Well, I know the roof is starting to leak, but I think I'd rather spend my money partying instead".  Would you be shocked when the roof caved in if someone did that?

As for global warming, the notion that we can't affect our environment is laughable.  Cities already create an urban heat island that is greater than the non-urban areas surrounding it.  That's just a microcosm of how we can affect our environment.   I realize I am not going to convince you, because if the consensus of the overwhelming majority of climatologists isn't going to convince you, I am certainly not going to do it.  I honestly think some of the resistance to the notion that man can indeed have an affect on our environment is more due the fact that you hate the messenger to the point that you don't want to realize that Al Gore isn't the one who came up with the ideas and studies....he is just the person who brought some much needed attention to what has been  the consensus for some time now among scientists far more qualified than noted climatologists such as Rush Limbaugh.   We heard some of the same things about CFC emissions and ozone depletion and magically, after the Reagan administration belatedly signed onto the idea that maybe something as big as the ozone layer could be affected by humans and did something, the problem started to be resolved and measurable improvement has been noted as a result.

Of course, I don't expect conservatives to be on the bleeding edge of any science that isn't specifically designed to destroy humans more efficiently (ie, support for a multi-trillion dollar death ray would likely be at the top of a conservative's list of things that must be funded whereas funding to create cleaner energy sources would likely be somewhere right above stem-cell research or building levees that can withstand a major hurricane).  We see enough evidence of that in the fact that at least 3 of the "conservative" candidates question evolution and many still rail against the APA removing homosexuality from the list of mental illnesses. 

So as things go, I wouldn't expect that with the attitude your chosen party has toward our segment of the population, that we'll be flocking to vote for the republican candidate anytime soon.   And while I will be the first to admit I'd rather see the majority of democratic candidates take a strong stand on supporting full equality and marriage for gays and lesbians, a person who is hungry is more likely to gravitate toward the candidate that at least sympathizes and wants to make SOME steps to that goal than the candidates of the party that would just as soon we all climbed back into the closet and never ventured out.

[libvet]

What's really rich in all of this is how the Defense of Marriage Brigade supposedly hold marriage up in such high esteem- yet essentially reduces it to just a question of genitalia.

A trans male can be in a gay relationship with another guy and get married without a hitch- as long as he still has the female equipment.  If he gets the surgery, his union is nullified.

The whole thing takes the question of love right out of the picture. 

Another amusement is how much this "sanctity of marriage" is espoused by the religious right...who conveniently forget that most of the figures of note in the Bible had harems with which they begat & begat & begat their litters of kids.

But one of the biggest insults is how often this sanctity is hollered about by men on wife number 3 or 4 already.

You raise a really good point.  Isn't it really incredible that gays are condemned as being unworthy of marrying their spouse due to the sanctity of marriage when Brittney Spears can marry and divorce in a month and Ghouliani is engaged in serial adultery and divorce?

[Iggy]

You know what's missing from this discussion?  It occurred to me this afternoon when I was thinking about my bf.

You know what is wrong about DOMA and all that shit - it really has nothing to do with the legal issues - not for gays and not for those who hate them - it has to do with the disney-like and disgustingly sweet idea of love.

I love my boyfriend.

I don't want any inheritance rights, don't think about tax issues and, though practical, I could give two shits at this moment to think about hospital visitation rights either.

No -  what I care about (as pessimistic and jaded and frankly as much as a royal curmudgeon that I am  perceived as) is to be all teary eyed in front of our family and friends and just say - "I love you and want to spend the rest of my life with you and ask all to bear witness to that."

No - for me, it's definitely not about rights at all - legal rights just cheapens the emotions of why I plan on marrying him....and I think those who oppose that hate that most of all....because after all isn't hate the opposite of love.

[libvet]

You know what's missing from this discussion?  It occurred to me this afternoon when I was thinking about my bf.

You know what is wrong about DOMA and all that shit - it really has nothing to do with the legal issues - not for gays and not for those who hate them - it has to do with the disney-like and disgustingly sweet idea of love.

I love my boyfriend.

I don't want any inheritance rights, don't think about tax issues and, though practical, I could give two shits at this moment to think about hospital visitation rights either.

No -  what I care about (as pessimistic and jaded and frankly as much as a royal curmudgeon that I am  perceived as) is to be all teary eyed in front of our family and friends and just say - "I love you and want to spend the rest of my life with you and ask all to bear witness to that."

No - for me, it's definitely not about rights at all - legal rights just cheapens the emotions of why I plan on marrying him....and I think those who oppose that hate that most of all....because after all isn't hate the opposite of love.

While to some extent, I agree with you, but from my perspective, I can already do just that and for the last 17 years I have lived my life with my chosen lifepartner as if that is exactly what I did..  I can have a commitment ceremony that would make the wedding of Charles and Diana look like a country church social, but at the end of the day, it doesn't make me next of kin, it doesn't give me the opportunity to make medical decisions without having jump though a legal hurdle, or make it more difficult for the family to come in and try to make decisions about our joint property should one of us die, or allow us to be on each other's insurance (or if it does, we have to pay it as after tax benefit) or any number of things.   

I don't like or accept being seen my country of birth as two people sharing a house.  We are two separate people, but we are also a family in every way that is possibly important.   Those rights and responsibilities that come with marriage may not be necessary to our love, but they may very well be necessary to respecting our wishes towards one another.  I don't share my deepest fears and wants and needs with anyone but my partner in life and I don't think anyone is better qualified to know what I may want than him.  Not my friends or my family.

[MoltenStorm]

Jack said:

It hard to take anyone seriously who really believes that Bush stole elections.

Read the Constitution. Then get back to me. I didn't say he "stole" them. I said the manner in which he obtained the election didn't follow Constitutional guidelines.

PS - The melodramatic robe just doesn't suit you. Try again.

Woodshere,

Same sex marriage ain't gonna happen, no way no how.  Rather than push for it I think efforts should be made in getting things we want.  In Ky we have some sort of Defense of Marriage Constitutional Amendment.  The 2 major state supported universities offered domestic partner benefits, but that was found to violate the amendment, so they now have health benefits available to one individual, regardless of who it is, that lives in the same household as the employee.  It was a creative way that same sex couples now have healthcare for both.  If I had a partner I would much rather have healthcare coverage for him, than a piece of paper saying we are married.  Some may think this is second class status, but not me, as I would have the same thing that my coworker has.

Libvet said it best:

I can have a commitment ceremony that would make the wedding of Charles and Diana look like a country church social, but at the end of the day, it doesn't make me next of kin, it doesn't give me the opportunity to make medical decisions without having jump though a legal hurdle, or make it more difficult for the family to come in and try to make decisions about our joint property should one of us die, or allow us to be on each other's insurance (or if it does, we have to pay it as after tax benefit) or any number of things.   

I don't like or accept being seen my country of birth as two people sharing a house.  We are two separate people, but we are also a family in every way that is possibly important.   Those rights and responsibilities that come with marriage may not be necessary to our love, but they may very well be necessary to respecting our wishes towards one another.  I don't share my deepest fears and wants and needs with anyone but my partner in life and I don't think anyone is better qualified to know what I may want than him.  Not my friends or my family.

RapidRod said:

You are off base. Look of the definiation on "marriage." You site Loving vs Virginia in 1967, which had nothing to do with marriage of same sex, but marriage between a man and a woman of different race. You have no arguement here Storm, no matter which way you want to twist it.

RapidRod, you are the one off base. I have twisted nothing. I have only quoted the Constitution, and I cited Loving vs Virginia. In that particular court case, it deemed "the right to marry" as a fundamental right. Ergo, a right granted to ALL US Citizens - regardless of sexual orientation per the 14th and 5th Amendments. Your definition of "marriage" is taken from the law in question; therefore, your argument is unfounded. I know how you like to go on like you know everything around here and that you are infallible; however, you have yet to offer any founded argument as to why my argument is void. Unless you can provide such, no amount of "throwing your weight around" is going to make your argument hold water. You have yet to offer a rebuttal to any of my points. I offered you the Full Faith Clause, the Equal Protection Clause, and Due Process as well as a court case defining "the right to marry" as a fundamental right. You've offered me pompous dictation and a quote from the DOMA. Hardly an argument.

[RapidRod]

Molten, we're done here. You don't have an argument.

[MoltenStorm]

This coming from the person who couldn't offer me a substantiated argument. This is a prime example of "don't confuse my opinion with the facts." You are entitled to your opinion, sir. However, your argument still is left wanting. Moving on.

[fearless]

No -  what I care about (as pessimistic and jaded and frankly as much as a royal curmudgeon that I am  perceived as) is to be all teary eyed in front of our family and friends and just say - "I love you and want to spend the rest of my life with you and ask all to bear witness to that."

.

You can do that right now, today, this very moment, if you want to Iggy. There is absolutely nothing stopping you. Only problem is that it will not be legally recognised. And, what comes with that legal recognition? all the rights that are attached to it.

So, I'd have to disagree and say that it is about rights. Personally, I'm ambivalent about gay marriage. I'm far more concerned about equal rights in other areas.

[fearless]

Molten,

Wouldn't your reading of that particular case, Loving vs Virginia, mean that I, with this right to marry have the right to marry whom or whatever I wanted to? a dog, a 5 year old, for example? (I know this is taking it to the extreme, but isn't that what you are arguing?

[libvet]

Molten, we're done here. You don't have an argument.

I'm sorry that you don't feel equality in marriage rights are worth your effort.  I don't agree with your assertion that we will never have gay marriage (or civil unions) in the United States.   Some states are already making small steps in that direction despite people who said it wasn't worth the fight.

Rod, there is one thing I can guarantee you:  Supporting the self-styled "conservative" party is NEVER going to result in equality for gays and if anything will reverse any advances we have made in the last 35 years or so (and lord knows they have fought tooth and nail to prevent gays from even having a semblance of equality).  By definition, since it changes the status quo, gay marriage or even gay equality is not a conservative ideal.

So I'm at a bit of a loss to imagine why I should throw my support behind a party that panders to bigots such as it has done in the last few elections using US as the boogieman.

I just don't see how anyone is comfortable aligning themselves with the party that wants to make sure that we never make any progress on the path to equality.

[RapidRod]

Libvet, No one mentioned the discussion of Civil Unions, the discussion was on marriage and the law. Nothing was even mentioned about political parties. No one said we won't have gay marriages or civil unions. It was said that it would never become a Federal Law. Without being a Federal Law, another State is not required to accept or honor the laws of another State.

[MoltenStorm]

Fearless stated:

Molten,

Wouldn't your reading of that particular case, Loving vs Virginia, mean that I, with this right to marry have the right to marry whom or whatever I wanted to? a dog, a 5 year old, for example? (I know this is taking it to the extreme, but isn't that what you are arguing?

I'm not arguing that, and yes, that is a bit of an extreme. What I am arguing is that any consenting adult who is a US citizen has a fundamental right to enter into a marriage with a consenting adult of their choosing - male or female. There is a fallacy in taking such an extreme as a dog or 5 year old because those extremes aren't realistic. Any person entering into a marriage must be cognisant of what such a legally-binding union entails.

The only reason the government passed the DOMA is to appease the religious community. I'm sorry, but separation of church and state means that religion has no place in law. Rights are rights regardless of whether or not a belief system condemns that particular union. As tax-paying US Citizens, we have a right to marry. Just because the word "marriage" has religious connotations doesn't mean that those religious beliefs apply.

[MoltenStorm]

Without being a Federal Law, another State is not required to accept or honor the laws of another State.

Yes, they are. I have quoted it ad nauseum, and I'll quote it again.

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

The second half of that is what's in question in regards to the Defense of Marriage Act. We are debating the constitutionality of the DOMA.

[RapidRod]

Molten, the leagal speed limit on W. Virgina freeways is posted at 70 mph for the most, Ohio is 65. Now come here in Ohio and go 70 because your state says you can and see if you don't find yourself with a ticket in Ohio.

You also need to find out what the real meaning of: Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof. Instead of your interpretation.

[MoltenStorm]

Marriage is a public act and public record (and, in the case of justice of the peace marriages, a judicial proceeding). Therefore, a State is required to honor that marriage even if it is performed in another state. My parents were married in Georgia, for example. We moved to Texas 10 years ago. That marriage is still recognized in Texas. Why? Full Faith Clause.

However, for the sake of argument, do share what the 'true' meaning of that clause is.

Note: My parents were married in 1983. DOMA was not signed into law yet, so the federal government had no "definition of marriage" then.

Just as a side note, "States' Rights" were bulldozed during the Reconstruction. The aftermath of the Civil War established the federal government as the powerhouse it is today. States' Rights don't account for much anymore.

[RapidRod]

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.

[MoltenStorm]

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?

[libvet]

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.

[RapidRod]

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.

[RapidRod]

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.

[libvet]

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.

[bocker3]

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

[MoltenStorm]

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.

[MoltenStorm]

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

[RapidRod]

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.

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.

[Iggy]

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.

[bocker3]

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

[MoltenStorm]

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?

[pozguy75]

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!

[libvet]

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.

[thunter34]

A tie-in thread I started awhile back.  For further reading if anyone is interested:

http://forums.poz.com/index.php?topic=10439.0

[MoltenStorm]

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.

[MoltenStorm]

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.