Gay Marriage to the Rescue!

[Gunny]

The 14th Amendment does provide for certain protections for homosexuals as has become more evident over the last say 20 years. Moreover, the 10th Amendment does provide for marriage to be dictated by the States, which is where it should remain.

However we are forgetting the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the US Constitution. Wherein any certified document of any state MUST be recognized by all other states of the union. This was ratified in with the original constitution, and therefore since gay marriage is legally accessible in Massachussettes, it is technically legal throughout the United States (though only accessible in MA). The war over gay marriage is already over.

Perhaps. Until the Full Faith and Credit clause comes under fire. The outcome of THAT will be the deciding factor, IMO.

 

[PsuedoGhost]

Perhaps. Until the Full Faith and Credit clause comes under fire. The outcome of THAT will be the deciding factor, IMO.

If you ask me that is where the ultimate outcome of gay marriage will lie. Again before the Supreme Court with a gay couple suing a state to allow them the same benefits that they are assured under the Full Faith and Credit Clause. If the Supreme Court is truly there to interpret the constitution, then only one decision will be rendered, and that is that all states will be forced to recognize gay marriage.

It's a shame too because just imagine the Conservatives screaming about judicial activism after that one. But what are they going to do? The Gay Marriage Ban will NEVER pass at the federal level, and as people recognize that it is not the end of the world as most of the hardcore leaders have made it out to be, support will gradually erode over time. Hell, if you look at the latest poll numbers support for the Gay Marriage Amendment is already eroding.

 

[Gunny]

If you ask me that is where the ultimate outcome of gay marriage will lie. Again before the Supreme Court with a gay couple suing a state to allow them the same benefits that they are assured under the Full Faith and Credit Clause. If the Supreme Court is truly there to interpret the constitution, then only one decision will be rendered, and that is that all states will be forced to recognize gay marriage.

It's a shame too because just imagine the Conservatives screaming about judicial activism after that one. But what are they going to do? The Gay Marriage Ban will NEVER pass at the federal level, and as people recognize that it is not the end of the world as most of the hardcore leaders have made it out to be, support will gradually erode over time. Hell, if you look at the latest poll numbers support for the Gay Marriage Amendment is already eroding.

I think you're mixing two issues. There are many conservatives who do not support gay marriage who also do not support a Constitutional Amendment. However, the Full Faith and Credit Clause is THE loophole for the gay marriage proponents. If anything is amended, it should be THAT.

And it is my opinion the Supreme Court should not entertain the topic. The judiciary has done enough damage to legislation that reflects the will of the majority.

 

[CockySOB]

Perhaps. Until the Full Faith and Credit clause comes under fire. The outcome of THAT will be the deciding factor, IMO.

Actually the Full Faith & Credit Clause (US Constitution, Article IV, Section 1) only takes precedence if the local jurisdiction hasn't already enacted legislation directly contradicting the other jursdiction. For example, if Illinois doesn't have specific legislation on the books disallowing homosexual unions, then it would be bound to honor a homosexual union founded in Massachusetts. However, we have seen a number of states enact legislation which forbids homosexual unions from being acknolwedged of legal status. As such, Full Faith & Credit is currently only partially applicable, and as each state passes its own legislation either for or against homosexual unions, the applicability of Full Faith & Credit to the argument is further diminished.

Furthermore, with the promotion of the Federal legislation for the Defense of Marriage Acts (DOMA), we might see Federal legsialtion which would trump States Rights on the matter entirely. Personally, I'm not comfortable with this creation of Federal jurisdiction into a matter which has been a States' Rights issue. I'd be much happier if I saw legislation which affirmed marriage as being a States' issue and only of concern to the Federal codes when discussing Federal taxes. And I'd prefer to see that removed as well.....

 

[Gunny]

Actually the Full Faith & Credit Clause (US Constitution, Article IV, Section 1) only takes precedence if the local jurisdiction hasn't already enacted legislation directly contradicting the other jursdiction. For example, if Illinois doesn't have specific legislation on the books disallowing homosexual unions, then it would be bound to honor a homosexual union founded in Massachusetts. However, we have seen a number of states enact legislation which forbids homosexual unions from being acknolwedged of legal status. As such, Full Faith & Credit is currently only partially applicable, and as each state passes its own legislation either for or against homosexual unions, the applicability of Full Faith & Credit to the argument is further diminished.

Furthermore, with the promotion of the Federal legislation for the Defense of Marriage Acts (DOMA), we might see Federal legsialtion which would trump States Rights on the matter entirely. Personally, I'm not comfortable with this creation of Federal jurisdiction into a matter which has been a States' Rights issue. I'd be much happier if I saw legislation which affirmed marriage as being a States' issue and only of concern to the Federal codes when discussing Federal taxes. And I'd prefer to see that removed as well.....

I'm not to keen on Federal involvement unless it is to preclude the gay agenda from circumventing legislature that represents the will of the majority through the judiciary.

Since we already know they aren't going to be stopped, the loopholes need to be closed.

 

[CockySOB]

If you ask me that is where the ultimate outcome of gay marriage will lie. Again before the Supreme Court with a gay couple suing a state to allow them the same benefits that they are assured under the Full Faith and Credit Clause. If the Supreme Court is truly there to interpret the constitution, then only one decision will be rendered, and that is that all states will be forced to recognize gay marriage.

Spoken like an ignorant tool. Please, read up on the US Constitution, Artcile IV, Section !, as well some of the various case law surrounding it before commenting further. The embarrassment you prevent will probably be your own.

It's a shame too because just imagine the Conservatives screaming about judicial activism after that one. But what are they going to do? The Gay Marriage Ban will NEVER pass at the federal level, and as people recognize that it is not the end of the world as most of the hardcore leaders have made it out to be, support will gradually erode over time. Hell, if you look at the latest poll numbers support for the Gay Marriage Amendment is already eroding.

The whole issue of marriage belongs with the States alone. A marriage licence is issued by the state, not the Federal government. And if FF&C is the argument, all a state has to do is pass legislation prohibiting homosexual marriage in order to take FF&C off the table.

 

[jasendorf]

Homosexuals currently possess the same rights as normal people under the 14th Amendment, so there is no question.

And I agree it is a matter of State's rights; however, the lefty backdoor sliders (no pun intended) took it to the Supreme Court and involved the Fed Government because they could not otherwise circumvent the will of the people.

Really? Where? Oh, you didn't mean THE Supreme Court... you meant Massachusetts' Supreme Court. I see... (that' would be his lying excuse for trying to mislead, so I'll save him the trouble).

As usual, a disingenous post by GunnyL... "They have the same rights... a gay guy can marry a woman with no problem."

But, if a gay man doesn't love a woman but marries her just for the insurance... is that "protecting marriage"?

 

[jasendorf]

I'm not to keen on Federal involvement unless it is to preclude the gay agenda from circumventing legislature that represents the will of the majority through the judiciary.

Since we already know they aren't going to be stopped, the loopholes need to be closed.

Sorry you consider States' Rights to be "loopholes"

You'll do anything to hate gays won't you... even hand overyour state's rights...

 

[Hobbit]

Sorry you consider States' Rights to be "loopholes"

You'll do anything to hate gays won't you... even hand overyour state's rights...

States' rights have already been overridden. The gay marriage ammendments in several states, including my own, have already been overturned. I would love nothing more than to have my state given the right to decide the issue for themselves, and I think that blanketing the whole country with a federal Constitution ammendment is a gross infringement on that right, except that at least that process requires that a 3/4 majority of the states ratify, while the process by which gay marriage is being legalized involves no input from the people whatsoever.

 

[jasendorf]

States' rights have already been overridden. The gay marriage ammendments in several states, including my own, have already been overturned. I would love nothing more than to have my state given the right to decide the issue for themselves, and I think that blanketing the whole country with a federal Constitution ammendment is a gross infringement on that right, except that at least that process requires that a 3/4 majority of the states ratify, while the process by which gay marriage is being legalized involves no input from the people whatsoever.

Oh, but they do have a right... they can propose Amendments to their own state constitutions. Just because the individual state judiciaries have (as they are charged to do by their state constitutions) made decisions regarding the individual state laws.

It's funny how the moment you don't like a constitution you're willing to throw it out. Believe it or not, the Judiciary is charged with not bending to the whims of fancy... they are beholden to what I consider to be sacred documents. The Constitutions which should guide our states and our country shouldn't be simple fodder for election year politics.

Actually, I'm hoping that the Republicans push even harder on this...

Dick Cheney's daughter was on FOX or CNN tonight (can't remember which one I saw her on)... she has studied this issue very closely. Her research has led her to one conclusion... affinity or hatred towards gay marriage is more dependent on one demographic far beyond all others. That demographic... age. And, she predicts, that this issue could be a Party killer within 15 years.

Just in time for my son to have his first boyfriend!

 

[Avatar4321]

Whether we like it or not, this is going to be a constitutional issue. Sooner or later the Court going to make it a Constitutional issue whether we like it or not. So we may as well make it one in the way we want now.

Let the people in every state vote. And if our Senators dont support it, then its about time we called a Constitutional Convention and amended the Constitution without them.

 

[Avatar4321]

Senate Contact List

Figured id provide that in case anyone wants to let their Senator know how they feel.

 

[Gunny]

Really? Where? Oh, you didn't mean THE Supreme Court... you meant Massachusetts' Supreme Court. I see... (that' would be his lying excuse for trying to mislead, so I'll save him the trouble).

As usual, a disingenous post by GunnyL... "They have the same rights... a gay guy can marry a woman with no problem."

But, if a gay man doesn't love a woman but marries her just for the insurance... is that "protecting marriage"?

You're about stupid, and you should quit proving it with your ignorant posts. I DIDN'T mean the MA Supreme COurt, nimrod. I meant the US Supreme Court. The issue of the rights of homosexuals was bumped up to the Supreme Court from a ruling in Texas, Einstein.

The disengenous one would be you. Love is not a legal prerequisite of marriage. Bogus argument.

Sorry you consider States' Rights to be "loopholes"

You'll do anything to hate gays won't you... even hand overyour state's rights...

And the further evidence of your complete stupidity .....

I did not state State's Rights were loopholes. I stated the Full Faith and Credit Clause is. As a matter of fact, I believe I posted that I am against Federal involvement and the issue should be handled at the state level.

Nowhere have I ever stated that I hate homosexuals. An assumption on your part with no basis in fact.

Try some 1st grade reading and comprehension next time PRIOR to reponding to one of my posts.

 

[jasendorf]

You're about stupid, and you should quit proving it with your ignorant posts. I DIDN'T mean the MA Supreme COurt, nimrod. I meant the US Supreme Court. The issue of the rights of homosexuals was bumped up to the Supreme Court from a ruling in Texas, Einstein.

The disengenous one would be you. Love is not a legal prerequisite of marriage. Bogus argument.



And the further evidence of your complete stupidity .....

I did not state State's Rights were loopholes. I stated the Full Faith and Credit Clause is. As a matter of fact, I believe I posted that I am against Federal involvement and the issue should be handled at the state level.

Nowhere have I ever stated that I hate homosexuals. An assumption on your part with no basis in fact.

Try some 1st grade reading and comprehension next time PRIOR to reponding to one of my posts.

You wanna post that case "in Texas" that the USSC? Is this like your "girlfriend" in Niagara Falls?

DOMA already covers the Full Faith and Credit Clause clause. In fact, it's been upheld three times already. No dice.

 

[Gunny]

You wanna post that case "in Texas" that the USSC? Is this like your "girlfriend" in Niagara Falls?

DOMA already covers the Full Faith and Credit Clause clause. In fact, it's been upheld three times already. No dice.

Dude, summer school registration at the elementary school is still open. Feel free to partake of same. Learn to read and comprehend at the second-grade level, then come back and try again. Perhpas you can turn that gibberish above into coherent thought.

But here you go: http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/26/scotus.sodomy/

I can hardly wait to see what kind of abortion you can make of this.

 

[jasendorf]

You're citing a SODOMY LAW case as the equivalent to gay marriage???

How about some real cases involving DOMA?

CALIFORNIA

Smelt v. Orange County

Plaintiffs: Arthur Smelt and Christopher Hammer
Defendants: Orange County and Michael Rodrian, Orange County Clerk
Plaintiffs’ Counsel: Gilbert & Marlowe
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
STATUS: Pending: federal intermediate appellate court
Published Opinion: Smelt v. County of Orange, 374 F. Supp. 2d 861 (C.D. Cal 2005).

Details: On September 7, 2004, plaintiffs, having been denied a marriage license, filed suit, challenging the constitutionality of California’s discriminatory marriage law as well as the federal Defense of Marriage Act. Oral arguments are scheduled for January 27, 2005. Liberty Counsel and Alliance Defense Fund have intervened in the case. Plaintiffs’ counsel has stated his intent to appeal the case as far as the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary. Lambda Legal and NCLR petitioned the trial judge to delay his ruling on the case until a California state court has ruled on the validity of the state’s discriminatory marriage law. On June 16, 2005, the trial judge ruled against the plaintiffs, upholding the constitutionality of the federal definition of marriage portion of DOMA. The trial court abstained from considering the federal constitutionality of California’s marriage laws because they are currently being reviewed in state courts. The court also found that the plaintiffs did not have standing to challenge the interstate recognition portion of DOMA. Plaintiff’s filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which is scheduled to hear oral arguments on April 4, 2006.


FLORIDA


Hunt v. Ake

Plaintiffs: Rev. Phyllis Hunt and Vilia Corvision
Defendants: Richard Ake, Hillsborough County Clerk of Courts
Plaintiffs’ Counsel: Ellis Rubin, P.A.
Court: United States District Court, Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division
STATUS: Concluded: case dismissed
Published Opinion: n/a

Details: On August 11, 2004, plaintiffs filed suit challenging the constitutionality of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, specifically the failure of Florida to recognize their Canadian marriage license by virtue of that statute. On January 20, 2005, this case was dismissed along with Wilson v. Ake (see below). Plaintiffs have announced that they will not appeal.


Sullivan v. Bush

Plaintiffs: F.D.R. Sullivan and Pedro Barrios, along with three other same-sex couples
Defendants: Jeb Bush, Governor of Florida; John Ashcroft, U.S. Attorney General; Charlie Crist, Florida Attorney General; Harvey Ruvin, Miami-Dade Clerk of Courts
Plaintiffs’ Counsel: Ellis Rubin, P.A.
Court: United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, Miami Division
STATUS: Concluded: plaintiffs voluntarily withdrew case
Published Opinion: n/a

Details: On May 12, 2004, plaintiffs filed a lawsuit challenging the federal Defense of Marriage Act. On August 27, 2004, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a motion to dismiss. On January 25, 2005, following an unfavorable ruling in two other federal cases in Florida, plaintiffs voluntarily withdrew their suit.


Wilson v. Ake

Plaintiffs: Nancy Wilson and Paula Schoenwether
Defendants: Richard Ake, Hillsborough County Clerk of Courts; John Ashcroft, U.S. Attorney General
Plaintiffs’ Counsel: Ellis Rubin, P.A.
Court: United States District Court, Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division
STATUS: Concluded: case dismissed
Published Opinion: Wilson v. Ake, 354 F. Supp. 2d 1298 (M.D. Fla. 2005).

Details: On July 19, 2004, plaintiffs filed suit challenging the constitutionality of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, specifically the failure of Florida to recognize their Massachusetts marriage license by virtue of that statute. Liberty Counsel made a motion to intervene. On August 12, 2004, that motion was denied. On January 20, 2005, Judge Moody granted the Department of Justice’s motion to dismiss the case. On January 24, plaintiffs announced that they would not appeal the case.


MINNESOTA


McConnell v. United States.

Plaintiffs: Mike McConnell and Jack Baker
Defendants: United States
Plaintiffs’ Counsel: Law Office of Larry Leventhal
Court: United States District Court, District of Minnesota
STATUS: Concluded: case dismissed
Published Opinion: McConnell v. United States, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1313, *; 95 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 568 (D. Minn. 2005).

Details: Plaintiffs were issued a marriage license in the 1970s that was later revoked. They filed suit asserting a right to file joint federal taxes, arguing that their marriage pre-dated the Defense of Marriage Act. The government filed a motion to dismiss, which was granted on November 2, 2004.

NOTA BENE: It is not clear that this is a direct challenge to DOMA.


OKLAHOMA


Bishop v. Oklahoma (see “Federal Cases Challenging State Marriage Amendments”)


WASHINGTON


In re Kandu

Plaintiffs: Lee Kandu and Ann Kandu
Defendants: United States of America
Plaintiffs’ Counsel: Resolve Legal, PLLC
Court: United States Bankruptcy Court, Western District of Washington
STATUS: Pending: appeal to federal trial court
Published Opinion: In re Kandu, 315 B.R. 123 (Bankr, W.D. Wash. 2004).

Details: On August 17, 2004, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Paul B. Snyder ruled that principles of comity governing recognition of foreign marriages would not require the court to allow a same-sex couple married in Canada to file a joint bankruptcy petition as spouses. Finding that the federal Defense of Marriage Act requires dismissing the petition, the judge also rejected several arguments that DOMA's application in this case violated the federal constitutional rights of the applicants. On August 30, 2004, the plaintiff appealed to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington.

NOTA BENE: It is not clear that this is a direct challenge to DOMA.

 

[Gunny]

You're citing a SODOMY LAW case as the equivalent to gay marriage???

How about some real cases involving DOMA?

be a good little troll and go back and try and read and comprehend the context in which I made the statement. I did not cite the case as ab equivalent to gay marriage. I cited the case as an example of the gay agenda using the judiciary to dictate what the legislature won't give them.

Are you EVER going to get ANYTHING right?

 

[jasendorf]

I did not cite the case as ab equivalent to gay marriage. I cited the case as an example of the gay agenda using the judiciary to dictate what the legislature won't give them.

This is a anti-gay marriage/gay marriage thread... if you want to troll around about OTHER topics... find another thread. Maybe one entitled "the gay agenda" or "how gays are stealing our laws" or something like that...

The adults were all discussing gay marriage and the Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment that Congress is using days to waste their time on.

If you have a different topic you want to talk about... find a different thread. The Texas sodomy case has no relevance to a Gay Marriage Amendment... DOMA already covers the states' rights issue as has been proven by the case law above.

But, feel free to distract some more with your "Texas case" I suppose if you feel the need to troll for biters. I'm your huckleberry.

 

[Gunny]

This is a anti-gay marriage/gay marriage thread... if you want to troll around about OTHER topics... find another thread. Maybe one entitled "the gay agenda" or "how gays are stealing our laws" or something like that...

The adults were all discussing gay marriage and the Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment that Congress is using days to waste their time on.

If you have a different topic you want to talk about... find a different thread. The Texas sodomy case has no relevance to a Gay Marriage Amendment... DOMA already covers the states' rights issue as has been proven by the case law above.

But, feel free to distract some more with your "Texas case" I suppose if you feel the need to troll for biters. I'm your huckleberry.

**** you, dipshit. Let's see how you misinterpret THAT.

The topics change and I went with the flow. And when you get appointed a mod/admin of this board and Mr Thread Topic Enforcer, feel free to let me know.

And what would you know about anything adults are talking about? You can't e4ven comprehend at the level of a 1st grader.

 

[jasendorf]

**** you, dipshit. Let's see how you misinterpret THAT.

You want to marry me? Sorry, we can only do that in Massachusetts.

The topics change and I went with the flow. And when you get appointed a mod/admin of this board and Mr Thread Topic Enforcer, feel free to let me know.

And what would you know about anything adults are talking about? You can't e4ven comprehend at the level of a 1st grader.

I can comprehend that you'll spout any piece of tripe even if it doesn't relate to the topic in an attempt to distort, distract and divert attention from the fact that you're wrong. DOMA covers the states' rights issue. The case law proves it. No "Texas case" is going to change that.