Reply With Quote
Those who did get married when they could will remain so. And I don't know about "never" because times they are a changing.
they just broke the news. poor Ghazi. he will never be able to marry Dirk now.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009...-gay-marriage/
Last edited by BRHornet45; 05-26-2009 at 12:14 PM.
Those who did get married when they could will remain so. And I don't know about "never" because times they are a changing.
This nation would be worse of that I thought if the court ruled making a legal cons utional change, invalid.
I couldn't quite follow what you said, but I'd agree that it's good that the court shot this down. I'm of the mind that the cons utional change does not reflect a repudiation of the "rights of man" in the state cons ution itself. Let the law be changed by the will of the people in a few years time.
Thats a statement i agree with. Im not against gay marraige, but this is a "Majority wins" country.
If i have to eat about "Majority elected Obama, deal with it" for the next 4-8 years and acccept what the majority wanted there, shouldnt they then respect the majority of Californian's decision to ban gay marraige?
Nice of the courts to be gracious enough to uphold the peoples vote.
We're actually not a "majority wins" country in a lot of ways. We don't elect a President by a popular majority, as Al Gore knows from 2000. More importantly, the framers of the Cons ution addressed their assessments of individual rights in a manner that actually protects against the tyranny of the majority in a great many ways. If this were truly a majority wins country, things like segregation could still conceivably be deemed "cons utional" if a majority of voters in certain states ratified a measure mandating segregation; I think, however, that such a provision would undoubtedly run afoul of the 14th Amendment and, at the end of the day, the Cons utional guarantees will ALWAYS trump what the majority wants.
Whether the Cons ution can be construed to guarantee a right to marriage and a concomitant right to same-sex marriage remains an open question with strong arguments existing on both sides. What is undoubtedly true, however, is that since that question has not been definitively resolved as a matter of cons utional law, a majority vote in any given state will preclude same-sex marriage (or permit it). For now, there's not a signficant federal issue, but there will be (and soon, I suspect) when couples who were legally married in one state seek to invoke the Full Faith and Credit guarantees after moving to another state.
If I were married and gay, and wanted to move, I'd do my best to move to a state that legally recognized it.
Great post.
I love reading your posts.
But we already had that debate when people who were married in Hawaii (I think it was Hawaii) moved to other states. The ruling was they were not allowed to maintain their status as that state did not recognize their marraige as lawful.
edit: removed the rest for accuracy
Same-Sex Marriage Overview
In November 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that barring same-sex couples from civil marriage was uncons utional. The Senate then asked the Court for an advisory opinion on the cons utionality of a proposed law that would bar same-sex couples from civil marriage but would create civil unions as a parallel ins ution, with all the same benefits, protections, rights and responsibilities under law. In February, the Court answered, "segregating same-sex unions from opposite-sex unions cannot possibly be held rationally to advance or preserve" the governmental aim of encouraging "stable adult relationships for the good of the individual and of the community, especially its children." Under this decision, the state of Massachusetts began issuing marriage licenses to same sex couples in May 2004.
This ruling is part of a larger public discussion of "marriage" and "family" that started in 1993 when the Hawaii Supreme Court ruled that laws denying same-sex couples the right to marry violated state cons utional equal protection rights unless the state could show a "compelling reason" for such discrimination. In 1996, a trial court ruled that the state had no such compelling reason and the case headed back to the Supreme Court. Voters adopted a Cons utional amendment in 1998, before the final ruling was issued, giving the Legislature the power to reserve marriage to opposite-sex couples and effectively ending the lawsuit.
In April 2000, Vermont approved landmark legislation to recognize civil unions between same-sex couples, granting them virtually all the benefits, protections and responsibilities that married couples have under Vermont law. The Vermont legislation was a result of the state Supreme Court ruling in Baker v. Vermont that said same-sex couples are en led, under the state cons ution's "Common Benefits Clause," to the same benefits and protections as married opposite-sex couples. The court ruled that the Vermont Legislature must decide how to provide these benefits and protections, either by legalizing marriage for same-sex couples or by establishing an alternative system. In April 2005, Connecticut became the first state to legalize civil unions without prompting from the courts.
The Vermont Legislature chose to preserve marriage as the "legally recognized union of one man and one woman," but at the same time create a parallel system of civil unions for same-sex couples that goes beyond existing "domestic partnership" and "reciprocal beneficiaries" laws that exist in California and Hawaii and in many localities in the U.S. today.
In October, 2006, the New Jersey Supreme Court ordered the legislature to redefine marriage to include same-sex couples or to establish a separate legal structure, such as civil unions, to give same-sex couples the same rights as heterosexual marriage couples. In late 2006, the New Jersey legislature passed a statute allowing civil unions beginning February 19, 2007. New Hampshire passed legislation authorizing civil unions, which will take effect on January 1, 2008.
On May 15, 2008, the California Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples should have the right to marry. The ruling takes effect in mid-June, but could be stayed by the courts for six months, which would allow California residents to vote on a proposed cons utional amendment defining marriage between a man and a woman. If the amendment passes in November, same-sex marriage would again be banned in California.
Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)
Congress enacted the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in 1996, which bars federal recognition of same-sex marriages and allows states to do the same. Since 1996, many states have enacted legislation prohibiting same-sex marriages or the recognition of same-sex marriages formed in another jurisdiction. States have traditionally recognized marriages solemnized in other states, even those that go against the marriage laws of that particular state. Under the full faith and credit clause of the U.S. Cons ution, states are generally required to recognize and honor the public laws of other states, unless those laws are contrary to the strong public policy of that state.
Over half of the states have passed language defining marriage between a man and a woman in their state cons utions. Arizona is the only state where a cons utional amendment on the ballot in a general election has failed (2006). Typically, cons utional amendments have passed with an overwhelming majority.
There have been several proposals before Congress to amend the federal Cons ution, defining marriage as between a man and a woman and ensuring that states would not be required to recognize same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions. President Bush has announced his support for such an amendment, however, he is receptive to allowing states to "define other arrangements." This could indicate that the President does not favor enacting a federal ban on civil union or domestic partnership laws. Opponents of the amendment cite federalism concerns in addition to support for same-sex marriages. A cons utional amendment requires 2/3 of the U.S. House and Senate and 3/4 of the state legislatures for enactment. For a summary of proposed federal legislation from 2002 to present, click
Defense of Marriage Acts (DOMA)
Forty-one states currently have statutory Defense of Marriage Acts. Three of those states have statutory language that pre-dates DOMA (enacted before 1996) defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Thirty states have defined marriage in their cons utions. Arizona is the only state that has ever defeated a cons utional amendment defining marriage between a man and a woman (2006), but subsequently passed one in 2008.
http://www.ncsl.org/programs/cyf/samesex.htm
Last edited by rasho8; 05-26-2009 at 02:02 PM. Reason: found documentation.
DOMA and its opt-out on Full Faith and Credit is really going to be what gets the substantive issue before the Supreme Court of the United States, I think. A state can opt-out on giving full faith and credit where it can establish a strong public policy interest in denying credit to a sister state's enactment (such as a marriage license). But if a right to same-sex marriage is found to be among the interests protected by the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment -- and if such a right is deemed a fundamental cons utional right (marriage, as an ins ution is already so recognized) -- it will be nearly impossible for a state to articulate a policy interest that would be strong enough to trump that cons utional right and would invalidate the FF&C opt-out that DOMA claims to create.
Like I say, there are strong arguments on both sides of the substantive debate (though, as many here know, I decidedly favor the arguments in support of recognizing same-sex marriage). I think we'll see the same-sex marriage/full faith and credit duo work their way to the Supreme Court in the next few years and will have a substantive decision on the issue. At the moment, I'd predict that the Supreme Court's majority would likely leave it a state-by-state issue and conclude that DOMA's opt-out is cons utional. But I think that's entirely dependent upon the fact that the Court tends conservative on such issues because of Justice Kennedy's relative conservatism. I'm not sure that such a result would be objectively supportable or Justice Kennedy really warrants possession of such power. But that would nevertheless be my hunch.
Man, this has been a rough couple of weeks for adam lambert.
If you support same-sex marriage, how do you feel about polygamy?
Just curious.
Huh, interesting twist, I'm not sure if anyone has ever raised that question.
And animals -- they always want to bring up animals too.
What do you pro- s think about marrying a dead baby squirrel? If we let the gays marry, whose to say I can't marry and have relations with a dead baby squirrel?? Better yet, what if I wanted to marry TWO dead baby squirrels? And what if they were both male??
I don't know about you, but I sure as don't want my children joining some gay dead squirrel baby poligamy cult just because you want the gays to get married.
Yeah that would be bad. Make sure your kids don't ever see dead baby squirrels or they might be converted into gay dead baby squirrel polygamists. Also, keep them away from baby seals. They're cute, warm, and blubbery. Children can easily fall for their charms.
I wouldn't do it, but if there's 3 consenting adults out there who want to, that should be their business.
If you can get that squirrel to convince a justice of the peace that it consents, then I'll support your right to marry it.
You're right...it should be. But, so long as the contract of marriage is so intertwined in government, it's everyone's business and, to many -- confining the definition of marriage to that between a man and a woman makes as much economic sense as it does moral sense.
The proper course of action is to remove all benefits and/or penalties of being married from the law. Period.
Let it become a personal contract between two (or more) people. No dependent insurance clauses, no tax benefits for married couples, etc...
2 consenting adults should be allowed to marry. How hard is that?
Last edited by George Gervin's Afro; 05-26-2009 at 08:34 PM.
Well, it draws a line at two. What do you have against polygamists?
There should be no governmental reward or penalty for being married or unmarried. How hard is that?
Beyond the extent the government (or courts) become involved in any contract, they should stay out of marriage.
To what consenting adults agree, that does not infringe on anothers rights, should not fall under government scrutiny. Period.
As a consequence, however, governments and employers should not be required to offer special dependent insurance coverage and there should be no tax benefits/penalties resulting from the agreement.
what rights are infringed upon yoni?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
