Maybe the SCOTUS is about to connect some more dots!

[WorldWatcher]

I think the Federal Government needs a legislative point of reference because the Constitution does not define marriage for them. So, they need to pass some kind of legislation FIRST and then recognize and or not recognize what marriages they want to, accordingly to that legislation.

It is not a side step in any way. It is my suggestion about how I think this issue should be resolved - in accordance with the Constitution.

After all, we ARE a representative republic are we not?

It is a side-step. I'm not asking what the Feds "could" do.

I'm asking what avenue "you" would support. Federal recognition of Civil Marriage entered into under state law, or impose restrictions on Federal recognition irregarless of what the State says. Along the lines of DOMA which implemented a Federal definition regardless of what the State said.

So which option do you support?

If Maine approved Same-Sex Civil Marriage, should the Fed's - in your opinion - recognize or reject that legal status?

It's not hard question.

WW

 

[Chuz Life]

It is a side-step. I'm not asking what the Feds "could" do.

I'm asking what avenue "you" would support. Federal recognition of Civil Marriage entered into under state law, or impose restrictions on Federal recognition irregarless of what the State says. Along the lines of DOMA which implemented a Federal definition regardless of what the State said.

So which option do you support?

If Maine approved Same-Sex Civil Marriage, should the Fed's - in your opinion - recognize or reject that legal status?

It's not hard question.

WW

My suggestion is for what the Feds SHOULD do. Not Could do.

And that is what I support.

 

[WorldWatcher]

My suggestion is for what the Feds SHOULD do. Not Could do.

And that is what I support.

And yet that wan't the question.

The question is, do you support the Fed's recognizing Civil Marriage per a states law or should they reject Civil Marriage despite state law?

WW

 

[Chuz Life]

And yet that wan't the question.

The question is, do you support the Fed's recognizing Civil Marriage per a states law or should they reject Civil Marriage despite state law?

WW

You are not reading or caring to understand my answer. The Federal Government should neither recognize nor reject "marriages" as they are defined by individual States - unless or until the Federal Government legislates what the definition for marriage that the FEDERAL government WILL recognize as a marriage is established.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Basically, I think (as Roberts Thomas and Alito indicated) the State's right to determine what marriage is to be, was circumvented (probably unConstitutionally) by the divided SCOTUS ruling that is being challenged.

obergefell v hodges

You’re still not being honest, You're fixated on the state’s right thing as an excuse to oppose gay marriage. You are too much of a coward to state the real reasons why you oppose gay marriage. Spell it out!

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I think the Federal Government needs a legislative point of reference because the Constitution does not define marriage for them. So, they need to pass some kind of legislation FIRST and then recognize and or not recognize what marriages they want to, accordingly to that legislation.

It is not a side step in any way. It is my suggestion about how I think this issue should be resolved - in accordance with the Constitution.

After all, we ARE a representative republic are we not?

Again you’re full of shit. You know damned well that given the political climate in this country, there will never be a legislative solution favorable to gay marriage. And in fact you do not want that. But, you keep dancing around the issue with your convoluted bullshit rather then being honest about why you oppose gay marriage.

The fact is that when the political system fails to protect human rights, the judiciary must. The issue has already been be resolved - in accordance with the Constitution. You just don’t like it but are to much of a coward to admit why- and I don’t believe for a second that it is really about some manufactured devotion to states rights

I asked why you can't or wont just leave them alone, but you have no answer. Gay people have been getting married here for a long time now, Then have just blended into society and pose no problem . Yet you support the bigotry that wants to upend their lives while not having the guts to explain why

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Public displays of degenerate actions and nudity are not "private lives" moron. If you kept your degenerate sexuality private, there would be no complaint.

What does that have to do with marriage.?

 

[Chuz Life]

Thread derails and personal attacks reported.

 

[WorldWatcher]

You are not reading or caring to understand my answer. The Federal Government should neither recognize nor reject "marriages" as they are defined by individual States - unless or until the Federal Government legislates what the definition for marriage that the FEDERAL government WILL recognize as a marriage is established.

They did that. They said, for Civil Marriage and Fedeal recognition, thaet marriage is between two people and is valid, for Federal recognition, if legal in the location where the Civil Marriage was entered into. And under their authority under the US Constitution, Artivle IV, Section 1 require States to honor valid Civil Marriages entered into in another State. They can't pick and choose.

So the question is do you support the law as it stands or, in your opinion should Congress change the definition of Civil Marriage to reject legal Civili Marriages unless between a man and a woman and repeal the Constitutional provision under Article IV Section 1.
.
.
.
1 USC 7
"(a)For the purposes of any Federal law, rule, or regulation in which marital status is a factor, an individual shall be considered married if that individual’s marriage is between 2 individuals and is valid in the State where the marriage was entered into or, in the case of a marriage entered into outside any State, if the marriage is between 2 individuals and is valid in the place where entered into and the marriage could have been entered into in a State."

28 US 1738C
"(1)full faith and credit to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State pertaining to a marriage between 2 individuals, on the basis of the sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin of those individuals; or

(2)a right or claim arising from such a marriage on the basis that such marriage would not be recognized under the law of that State on the basis of the sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin of those individuals."

United States Constitution, Article IV Section 1
"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."

WW
.
.
.
.

The United States Constitution – The U.S. Constitution Online – USConstitution.net – usconstitution.net

www.usconstitution.net

1 U.S. Code § 7 - Marriage

www.law.cornell.edu

28 U.S. Code § 1738C - Certain acts, records, and proceedings and the effect thereof

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[sparky]

So the question is do you support the law as it stands or, in your opinion should Congress change the definition of Civil Marriage to reject legal Civili Marriages unless between a man and a woman and repeal the Constitutional provision under Article IV Section 1.

Seems one would support (or not) a Christian nation here WW........~S~

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Thread derails and personal attacks reported.

I held you feet to the fire and called you out for what you are. Deal with it. I'm still here .

 

[Chuz Life]

I held you feet to the fire and called you out for what you are. Deal with it. I'm still here .

You may be 'here' but you are on ignore (or will be soon) unless and until you answer my point first (because I raised the point first in the OP and several times after) - About fucktards who are fine with basic human rights and "personhood" varying State by State. . . hypocritically insisting that it would be wrong or unconstitutional for a legal construct like "marriage" to vary in the same way.

 

[Foxfyre]

Supreme Court Faces Decision on Case Urging Overturn of Same-Sex Marriage​

Today at nullToday at null; Supreme Court faces decision on case urging overturn of same-sex marriage

"The U.S. Supreme Court is facing a choice about whether to take up a case filed by former Kentucky clerk Kim Davis urging the overturn its decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, the landmark case that guaranteed the right to same-sex marriage nationwide."

I hope the SCOTUS takes this case and (just as the SCOTUS did in Dobbs) kicks it back to the individual States to decide for themself what they will and will not recognize as a "marriage."

If it's Constitutional for "personhood" to vary State by State, why not a legal construct like "marriage" too?

There is a legal construct for marriage. Each state decides what it's marriage laws will be. And while all states agree on similar laws for heterosexual marriage--these laws are pretty much limited to providing protections for any children produced by that marriage which is something so-called 'gay marriage' doesn't need.

The federal government has long encouraged heterosexual marriage via the tax code. This is appropriate in the interest of promoting the general welfare. The traditional American family has been the backbone of our society. And the more of that there is the less crime, more stable communities, better education, more prosperity for all there is.

Nevertheless the laws governing marriage are left to the states to establish. The same should be true of same sex marriage.

 

[Chuz Life]

They did that. They said, for Civil Marriage and Fedeal recognition, thaet marriage is between two people and is valid, for Federal recognition, if legal in the location where the Civil Marriage was entered into. And under their authority under the US Constitution, Artivle IV, Section 1 require States to honor valid Civil Marriages entered into in another State. They can't pick and choose.

So the question is do you support the law as it stands or, in your opinion should Congress change the definition of Civil Marriage to reject legal Civili Marriages unless between a man and a woman and repeal the Constitutional provision under Article IV Section 1.
.
.
.
1 USC 7
"(a)For the purposes of any Federal law, rule, or regulation in which marital status is a factor, an individual shall be considered married if that individual’s marriage is between 2 individuals and is valid in the State where the marriage was entered into or, in the case of a marriage entered into outside any State, if the marriage is between 2 individuals and is valid in the place where entered into and the marriage could have been entered into in a State."

28 US 1738C
"(1)full faith and credit to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State pertaining to a marriage between 2 individuals, on the basis of the sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin of those individuals; or

(2)a right or claim arising from such a marriage on the basis that such marriage would not be recognized under the law of that State on the basis of the sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin of those individuals."

United States Constitution, Article IV Section 1
"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."

WW
.
.
.
.

The United States Constitution – The U.S. Constitution Online – USConstitution.net – usconstitution.net

www.usconstitution.net

1 U.S. Code § 7 - Marriage

www.law.cornell.edu

28 U.S. Code § 1738C - Certain acts, records, and proceedings and the effect thereof

www.law.cornell.edu

This is an example of the Federal Government going half way on the issue and I wonder how those examples will be (might be) affected, if Obergefell were to be overturned.

That said, I believe existing laws have to be respected, even as they are being challenged, unless any one person of conscience wants to push the issue even harder by risking being arrested for refusing to obey a law they want to challenge, as the Kentucky Clerk (Kim Davis) did.

 

[WorldWatcher]

This is an example of the Federal Government going half way on the issue and I wonder how those examples will be (might be) affected, if Obergefell were to be overturned.

That said, I believe existing laws have to be respected, even as they are being challenged, unless any one person of conscience wants to push the issue even harder by risking being arrested for refusing to obey a law they want to challenge, as the Kentucky Clerk (Kim Davis) did.

Kim Davis did more then claim a religious accommodation for her beliefs.

She ordered her subordinates not to perform their duties based on her religious beliefs.

Do you think it's should be allowed for a person in a position of power to order people to not do their job based on the religious beliefs of the person in power?

WW

 

[Chuz Life]

Kim Davis did more then claim a religious accommodation for her beliefs.

She ordered her subordinates not to perform their duties based on her religious beliefs.

Do you think it's should be allowed for a person in a position of power to order people to not do their job based on the religious beliefs of the person in power?

WW

Freedom of choice includes the freedom to make choices that might (or will most likely) land you in jail. If you think YOUR views are strong enough that you want to risk jail too. . . you are free to make those kind of choices too.

It's kind of like when I was in the service. We were instructed to always follow orders. That is all orders. . . unless the order is "unlawful."

If you are going to refuse to obey an order because you THINK or believe it is an unlawful order? You'd better be prepared to prove that decision in the end.

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

It is a side-step. I'm not asking what the Feds "could" do.

I'm asking what avenue "you" would support. Federal recognition of Civil Marriage entered into under state law, or impose restrictions on Federal recognition irregarless of what the State says. Along the lines of DOMA which implemented a Federal definition regardless of what the State said.

So which option do you support?

If Maine approved Same-Sex Civil Marriage, should the Fed's - in your opinion - recognize or reject that legal status?

It's not hard question.

WW

State rights?

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

It is a side-step. I'm not asking what the Feds "could" do.

I'm asking what avenue "you" would support. Federal recognition of Civil Marriage entered into under state law, or impose restrictions on Federal recognition irregarless of what the State says. Along the lines of DOMA which implemented a Federal definition regardless of what the State said.

So which option do you support?

If Maine approved Same-Sex Civil Marriage, should the Fed's - in your opinion - recognize or reject that legal status?

It's not hard question.

WW

Supremacy clause

 

[WorldWatcher]

Freedom of choice includes the freedom to make choices that might (or will most likely) land you in jail. If you think YOUR views are strong enough that you want to risk jail too. . . you are free to make those kind of choices too.

It's kind of like when I was in the service. We were instructed to always follow orders. That is all orders. . . unless the order is "unlawful."

If you are going to refuse to obey an order because you THINK or believe it is an unlawful order? You'd better be prepared to prove that decision in the end.

Except you appear to ignore the facts of her actions. She didn't just refuse to issue a Civil Marriage license because of her religious beliefs, she ordered or subordinates to comply with her religious beliefs even though they testified they would be fine with issuing the licenses.

He not issuing a license was not why she ended up in jail. She ended up in jail for ordering her staff not to comply with the law.

WW

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

It is a side-step. I'm not asking what the Feds "could" do.

I'm asking what avenue "you" would support. Federal recognition of Civil Marriage entered into under state law, or impose restrictions on Federal recognition irregarless of what the State says. Along the lines of DOMA which implemented a Federal definition regardless of what the State said.

So which option do you support?

If Maine approved Same-Sex Civil Marriage, should the Fed's - in your opinion - recognize or reject that legal status?

It's not hard question.

WW

Will the Supreme Court revisit its ruling on same-sex marriage?

Updated on Oct. 22 at 6:28 p.m. In 2015, shortly after the Supreme Court recognized a constitutional right to same-sex marriage in Obergefell v. Hodges, a local county clerk from […]

www.scotusblog.com