Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why can people not see, that it is so disrespectful and shows how racist they really are, when they try to compare the pasts of black people in america with homosexuality. But I guess go ahead and show us, how you little you think about blacks, we already knew. but please keep proving it.
So only African Americans have civil rights? Only they are allowed to fight for equality?
There have been many different groups that fought for, and won their civil rights.
We are just another one.
eta. Nowhere in her post were African Americans even mentioned.
No. Marriage is a right defined by state law. The real issue of same-sex marriage is legal recognition. Texas, for example, recently passed a constitutional amendment defining marriage, which provides in pertinent part: "Sec. 32. (a) Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman. (b ) This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage." The recent constitutional challenges over recognition of same-sex marriage have been under the "Full Faith and Credit Clause" (Const., Art. IV, Sec. 1); e.g., a gay couple married in Massachusetts moves to a state like Texas. Many provisions of federal law incorporate state marriage laws for determining individual rights and benefits, and the issue raised is whether one state’s law defining marriage must be given extraterritorial effect. In this regard, Congress has enacted the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which is a federal law that has to do with the applicability of the "Full Faith and Credit Clause" of the Constitution to state marriage laws. The act provides: "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." 28 U.S.C. § 1738c. Thus, in order for laws providing for same-sex marriage to be given extraterritorial effect, DOMA would have to be repealed by the Congress or declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Thus far, challenges to the validity of DOMA have not been successful. See, e.g. ; In re Kandu, 315 B.R. 123 (Bankr. W.D.Wash 2004). However, as more states enact laws sanctioning same-sex marriages, there will be more cases which will raise the issue of it as a "fundamental right" that is entitled to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment; but DOMA is the "back door" to getting the Supreme Court to decide the issue.
No. Marriage is a right defined by state law. The real issue of same-sex marriage is legal recognition. Texas, for example, recently passed a constitutional amendment defining marriage, which provides in pertinent part: "Sec. 32. (a) Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman. (b ) This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage." The recent constitutional challenges over recognition of same-sex marriage have been under the "Full Faith and Credit Clause" (Const., Art. IV, Sec. 1); e.g., a gay couple married in Massachusetts moves to a state like Texas. Many provisions of federal law incorporate state marriage laws for determining individual rights and benefits, and the issue raised is whether one state’s law defining marriage must be given extraterritorial effect. In this regard, Congress has enacted the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which is a federal law that has to do with the applicability of the "Full Faith and Credit Clause" of the Constitution to state marriage laws. The act provides: "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." 28 U.S.C. § 1738c. Thus, in order for laws providing for same-sex marriage to be given extraterritorial effect, DOMA would have to be repealed by the Congress or declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Thus far, challenges to the validity of DOMA have not been successful. See, e.g. ; In re Kandu, 315 B.R. 123 (Bankr. W.D.Wash 2004). However, as more states enact laws sanctioning same-sex marriages, there will be more cases which will raise the issue of it as a "fundamental right" that is entitled to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment; but DOMA is the "back door" to getting the Supreme Court to decide the issue.
The going word is that the USSC will be hearing two cases this term where DOMA was found, in part, to be unconstitutional. I believe those two cases pertain only to the federal recognition portion, and not the FF&C clause.
So only African Americans have civil rights? Only they are allowed to fight for equality?
There have been many different groups that fought for, and won their civil rights.
We are just another one.
eta. Nowhere in her post were African Americans even mentioned.
please don't try it, for the past few years we have been hearing about how gay marriage issue is like the problems black faced in america, heck we have even heard the "gay is the new black"
and thank you for proving my point about you all being racist by calling us African American
please don't try it, for the past few years we have been hearing about how gay marriage issue is like the problems black faced in america, heck we have even heard the "gay is the new black"
and thank you for proving my point about you all being racist by calling us African American
What would you like to be called? It is kinda difficult to describe a certain race without using a descriptive term.
I have friends that prefer this term, but if you prefer a different one I would be happy to use it.
Marriage is kept as is, and is left to the states to decide what they wish to do. It's not an issue that the federal government should get involved in.
Getting tired of this "left to the states" nonsense.
It is 2012, not 1776 - we are the UNITED Stated of America. We are connected to each other in every way possible in this country. If we don't move in tandem, we are going to be tripping all over ourselves. There are some things that can be left to individual states - recognition/definition of marriage is not one of them.
What would you like to be called? It is kinda difficult to describe a certain race without using a descriptive term.
Well, I am not from Africa, I am from America, I would like to be called an American, not some type of hyphenated American, but we know how you feel, you think we are not enough of an American to be considered a real American. this is my problem with Liberals, they hate us black Americans and think we are less then them.
Well, I am not from Africa, I am from America, I would like to be called an American, not some type of hyphenated American, but we know how you feel, you think we are not enough of an American to be considered a real American. this is my problem with Liberals, they hate us black Americans and think we are less then them.
You didn't answer my question.
Some prefer the term African American, some prefer black, some prefer person of color. Which do you prefer?
When describing a particular race in text, or speech what do you consider to be proper?
I personally don't like any hyphenated American title, but became accustomed to it, as it is preferred by some of my friends.
government cant fix marriage. gays are interested in establishing themselves as a genuine minority that is the agenda and marriage is only 1 step in that direction. protected species action is very very expensive for government. it has a high implementation cost. we are broke i dont think we have the money.
the people need to do their own marriage contracts and property arrangements u dont need government to do it.
this is very true regarding prenups.
Getting tired of this "left to the states" nonsense.
It is 2012, not 1776 - we are the UNITED Stated of America. We are connected to each other in every way possible in this country. If we don't move in tandem, we are going to be tripping all over ourselves. There are some things that can be left to individual states - recognition/definition of marriage is not one of them.
That is the way this country was founded and we are the United STATES of America. We were created with states for a reason and there are many issues that should be left up to the states to decide, not the federal goverment, which doesn't have as much input from the actual citizens. Marriage is not an issue that should be determined by the federal government.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
