ANd here is the problem

[RetiredGySgt]

The Constitution and federal law REQUIRE every State to recognize the legal acts and papers and proceedings of every other State.

No matter why some States allow Gays to marry does not matter at all. Marriage is a LEGAL document and is required to be recognized as such by every State in the Union.

We should NOT have Judges legislating from the bench, but no matter how it became legal if a couple marries legally in one State every State is required to recognize the Marriage.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080530/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage

 

[midcan5]

I missed the problem?

 

[jillian]

It isn't a problem unless states insist on pandering to the religious right. Luckily, NY's new governor just did the right (only) thing:

Gov. David A. Paterson has directed all state agencies to begin to revise their policies and regulations to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions, like Massachusetts, California and Canada.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/29/nyregion/29marriage.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

But as is to be expected, the loonies are getting all het up:

The Rev. Duane Motley of New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms says the Democratic governor is circumventing the Legislature and courts and slapping New Yorkers in the face.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080529/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage_new_york

Perhaps Rev Motley should be out working at food bankss (which have 20% more people utilizing them b/c of the rise in price of gas) and combatting hunger....

 

[manifold]

Massachusetts and California sure, but Canada??

Fuck Canada!

 

[Shogun]

the "right" thing does not always mesh with the LEGISLATED will of the people. hell, what is "right" is a matter of perspective. I have to agree with RGS on this. I hope the gays enjoy their little three month window because strategically placed judges and brand new governors trying to make their mark won't be the ones passing a federal constitutional amendment. electing dems and liberals to office isn't a blank check to flaunt power and disregard the Constituion for the sake of the pet issue du jour. This kind of shit right here is why dems lose. Reaping the aftermath of George W Bush may work for 08 but 12 is only 4 years away.



"giving them enough rope to hang themselves" comes to mind.

 

[Steerpike]

The Constitution and federal law REQUIRE every State to recognize the legal acts and papers and proceedings of every other State.

Not necessarily. There has long been a public policy exception to the rule.

 

[jillian]

Not necessarily. There has long been a public policy exception to the rule.

As applied to who is legally married? I don't think so. And, the public policy exception is more likely to apply to comity, or whether we accredit something done in another country since we ask if the act met our standards.

But I can't say I know what you're talking about in regard to something like marriage.

 

[Ravi]

The Constitution and federal law REQUIRE every State to recognize the legal acts and papers and proceedings of every other State.

No matter why some States allow Gays to marry does not matter at all. Marriage is a LEGAL document and is required to be recognized as such by every State in the Union.

We should NOT have Judges legislating from the bench, but no matter how it became legal if a couple marries legally in one State every State is required to recognize the Marriage.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080530/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage

I don't get why you would object to one state having to recognize a legal marriage in another state.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

It isn't a problem unless states insist on pandering to the religious right. Luckily, NY's new governor just did the right (only) thing:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/29/nyregion/29marriage.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

But as is to be expected, the loonies are getting all het up:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080529/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage_new_york

Perhaps Rev Motley should be out working at food bankss (which have 20% more people utilizing them b/c of the rise in price of gas) and combatting hunger....

So you think almost all Americans for the last 200+ years have been "loonies"? That's what you're implying when you put that label on people who oppose gay marriage. You are truly self-centered in your quest to allow legal marriage to an abnormal minority.

And speaking of food banks, your dissing the Rev. just speaks to your wanton ignorance of the fact that RELIGIOUS people do a hell of lot more work in that area than you and your freakin' anti-religious scumbag greenie comrads. What's your big problem with RELIGION anyhow....they kick you out of the regular synagogue?

If California gets to lay this bullshit on the rest of America, better damn watch out for the whiplash...

 

[Steerpike]

As applied to who is legally married? I don't think so. And, the public policy exception is more likely to apply to comity, or whether we accredit something done in another country since we ask if the act met our standards.

But I can't say I know what you're talking about in regard to something like marriage.

There have been cases applying that policy exception of Full Faith and Credit. I don't remember them limiting it to any actual application of the clause, they simply said that as between the States Full Faith and Credit generally applies, but there may be exceptions if recognition goes against the strong public policy of the State.

 

[Shogun]

I don't get why you would object to one state having to recognize a legal marriage in another state.

um, because the PEOPLE of that state VOTED differently than a handful of judges in California?


I told Larky this SAME shit was going to creep up in the last thread about this and WHAT DO YOU FUCKING know...

 

[AllieBaba]

It isn't a problem unless states insist on pandering to the religious right. Luckily, NY's new governor just did the right (only) thing:



http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/29/nyregion/29marriage.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

But as is to be expected, the loonies are getting all het up:



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080529/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage_new_york

Perhaps Rev Motley should be out working at food bankss (which have 20% more people utilizing them b/c of the rise in price of gas) and combatting hunger....

Lovely inflammatory language from a hypocrite who claims to disdain people who use inflammatory language.

 

[jillian]

Because your posts are so...er ... sensitive.

nutter....

 

[Ravi]

um, because the PEOPLE of that state VOTED differently than a handful of judges in California?


I told Larky this SAME shit was going to creep up in the last thread about this and WHAT DO YOU FUCKING know...

But so what? Are you worried that they're going to start having sex in front of you?

 

[AllieBaba]

At least I don't piss and moan and write long, rambling diatribes about my personal distaste for inflammatory posts, "Dim"....

 

[jillian]

angwy awwie baby have no wite to cawl anywun else "dim"

 

[Shogun]

But so what? Are you worried that they're going to start having sex in front of you?

No, Ravi, and I understand that a person with as much disregard for out laws and constitution may not comprehend this, MY concern is that we follow the common binding contract that is the core of this expermeint we call America. by nullifying the validity of legislation, DESPITE THE SAME 04 REACTION to the SAME ISSUE, you trade democracy for your flavour of fascism.


and, by extension, who cares that sex in public is illegal as long as some strategic judges are in place to nullify a legal precedent, eh?



You'll understand when this issue hands republicans elections that dems can't afford to lose. Moreso when conservatives use your own methods against you. I don't want to see you crying foul when the supreme court, packed with cons, overturns some of your pet issues.

 

[Ravi]

No, Ravi, and I understand that a person with as much disregard for out laws and constitution may not comprehend this, MY concern is that we follow the common binding contract that is the core of this expermeint we call America. by nullifying the validity of legislation, DESPITE THE SAME 04 REACTION to the SAME ISSUE, you trade democracy for your flavour of fascism.


and, by extension, who cares that sex in public is illegal as long as some strategic judges are in place to nullify a legal precedent, eh?

Oh, you're still cranked up that judges actually rule on the constitutionality of a law.

Is the ability to influence the outcome of elections the only problem you have with gay marriage?

 

[AllieBaba]

angwy awwie baby have no wite to cawl anywun else "dim"

 

[Shogun]

Oh, you're still cranked up that judges actually rule on the constitutionality of a law.

Is the ability to influence the outcome of elections the only problem you have with gay marriage?

Golly gee, Ravi.. what EVER could you be alluding to?





And, the people made their legislative voices heard in 2000 regarding their state constitution and gay marriage. It may blow your mind to hear this but a democracy is not defined by the opinons of a handful of judges DESPITE results at the polls. crazy, I know.