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.
As Pittston2Sarasota said gays are denied 1,158 benefits that we do not have, and as he said we pay equal taxes for subpar rights ! Here is his post copied again.
.....I only want my chance at one. You have 1,158 Benefits that I can NEVER get; yet I pay equal taxes for subpar rights!!!!!
Maybe it's time to concentrate on holding together your own marriages and STOP fighting me and other gays from at least sharing in this privilege(marriage/unions)....that some of you seem to take very lightly...judging by these demographic statistics.
WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. ALL MEANS EVERYONE !
even simpler solution.....GET RID OF MARRIAGE COMPLETELY...why should 'married' people get BENEFITS that singles cant....that is discrimination
I don't think you understand the full faith and credit clause.
Apparently yes, I do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
Basically it simply states that every state must respect the public acts of another state(such as marriage). But it does not require one state to replace its own statutes(laws) with that of another state.
Exactly. I have never claimed otherwise.
However, your hypothetical below is simply wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
Lets pretend there are two states, Georgia and Massachusetts.
Lets say in Georgia the legal age to get married is 16 years old, and only to members of the opposite sex. In Massachusetts the legal age for marriage is 18 years old, and you can marry someone of any sex.
If the 16-year couple married in Georgia moved to Massachusetts, since Massachusetts has a statute that prohibits 16 year-olds from marrying, then they would not be required to recognize the marriage. If a homosexual couple moved from Massachusetts to Georgia, since Georgia has a statute that prohibits same-sex marriage, then Georgia does not have to recognize that marriage.
Wrong.
Under the full faith and credit clause Massachusetts would have to recognize the marriage of the 16 year olds. And Georgia would have to recognize the marriage of the same-sex couple.
Neither state would be required to change their statutes. But they would have to recognize the public acts of the other state as valid.
Last edited by HistorianDude; 09-23-2010 at 08:15 AM..
The Defense of Marriage Act, when challenged in court, has never won.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SourD
If you are saying that ALL states must recognize same sex marriages from another state you are wrong. There are many states that do not recognize it.
Alabama: The State of Alabama shall not recognize as valid any marriage of parties of the same sex that occurred or was alleged to have occurred as a result of the law of any jurisdiction regardless of whether a marriage license was issued.
Under the full faith and credit clause of the US Constitution, Alabama has no power to enforce that provision. If challenged (as it probably will eventually be) it will be declared unconstitutional, just as the DOMA has been every time it was challenged in court.
Irrelevant. The law stands unless or until the courts strike it down.
You haven't been paying attention.
In February of 2009, the US Court of Appeals for the 9th District declared DOMA unconstitutional. The US District COurt in Boston did the same in two different cases against DOMA just last July.
There have been a number of other court challenges to DOMA's constitutionality and it has never won once. The Supreme Court has, to this point, refused to hear any of the appeals so these decisions against DOMA all stand.
"Irrelevant" you say?
Perhaps you should look up the word in the dictionary.
You have no idea what you are talking about. The full faith and credit clause has almost everything to do with judicial rulings and the sharing of evidence from one state to another. Basically it was so people who commited a crime in one state couldn't just leave to another state.
"Almost everything" is a lot like "a little bit pregnant."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
It would be like if Vermont allowed marriage between a man and a dog and then the "couple" moved to Massachusetts. That Massachusetts would be forced to recognize such a union as legal. Or if Vermont allowed a marriage between a 30 year-old and a 10 year-old and then moved to Massachusetts, that Massachusetts must recognize such a marriage.
The idea of it is absolutely absurd.
It is... but the absurdity is not in one state's recognition of another state's acts. It is in the examples you provide.
I understand that extreme homophobes love to pretend homosexuality is equivalent to bestiality or pederasty. But the comparison is a gratitous slur, not a serious attempt at argument.
"Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia stated in his dissenting opinion to the "Lawrence v. Texas" decision that he feared application of the Full Faith and Credit Clause to the majority’s decision in that case might destroy "the structure... that has permitted a distinction to be made between heterosexual and homosexual unions." If Scalia's dissenting opinion holds true, the majority ruling could potentially negate the DOMA and create a legal situation in which all states might eventually be obliged to recognize same-sex marriages performed in Massachusetts, California, or Connecticut."
Momonkey. Do you not actually understand what Scalia is saying there?
He is, in fact, complaining in his dissent that the majority of the Supreme Court did decide that, under the full faith and credit clause, states absolutely would have to recognize same sex marriages performed in other states.
He doesn't like it one bit... but that is what the FF&C clause would demand.
I understand that extreme homophobes love to pretend homosexuality is equivalent to bestiality or pederasty. But the comparison is a gratitous slur, not a serious attempt at argument.
I understand that homosexuality is not beastiality. But it is still true that under the current interpretation of the "Full faith and credit clause", any union in any state would have to be recognized by all other states, even if those states expressly forbid such a union.
Those could includes unions between the young(supposedly Massachusetts allows girls to marry as young as 12).
A great number of states allow first-cousin marriage. What if it was brother/sister marriage? Or father/daughter marriage? Should all states have to recognize such a union?
What you are supporting is the erosion of sovereignty of the states. By forcing all states to recognize all acts of another, this allows a rogue state to basically dictate morality on other states. This is not what the founding fathers had intended when they created this union. And is not what James Madison said of the clause in the federalist papers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude
Momonkey. Do you not actually understand what Scalia is saying there?
He is, in fact, complaining in his dissent that the majority of the Supreme Court did decide that, under the full faith and credit clause, states absolutely would have to recognize same sex marriages performed in other states.
He doesn't like it one bit... but that is what the FF&C clause would demand.
This is exactly what Scalia is saying. He is saying under the majority decisions interpretation of the "Full faith and credit clause", that the states would have to recognize other states' same-sex marriages. He thus dissented arguing basically that this current interpretation of the clause has perverted its original meaning, and cannot be applied without completely destroying the fundamental basis of the union.
So on one hand you could say that Scalia has determined that under the FF&C clause, the states must recognize other states' "same-sex marriages". On the other hand Scalia is also stating that the current interpretation of the clause is wrong. Which is exactly what he stated in his dissent.
But this wouldn't be the first time liberal judges have attempted to legislate from the bench. Why don't you go read about all the other important Supreme court decisions that have gone to a "5-4" vote. Find me any important decision that the court has ever produced that was unanimous and I'll be in shock. In this particular case in the appeals court, I believe the vote went "2-1".
Why is it that people want to allow a few unelected men to dictate their own morality on all of us? Why is it that people somehow believe the supreme court is infallible?
Last edited by Redshadowz; 09-23-2010 at 11:53 AM..
As Pittston2Sarasota said gays are denied 1,158 benefits that we do not have, and as he said we pay equal taxes for subpar rights ! Here is his post copied again.
.....I only want my chance at one. You have 1,158 Benefits that I can NEVER get; yet I pay equal taxes for subpar rights!!!!!
Maybe it's time to concentrate on holding together your own marriages and STOP fighting me and other gays from at least sharing in this privilege(marriage/unions)....that some of you seem to take very lightly...judging by these demographic statistics.
WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. ALL MEANS EVERYONE !
Can you name 1 right that is based solely on your sexual preferences? Last I checked, that wasn't a question on the marriage license application.
Can someone please tell me why the government, at any level, is involved in marriage? What does a personal relationship of any kind have to do with the government, gay or otherwise???
Because then some groups can use the force of gov. to push agendas...
If marriage was not in the government's purview,then some groups couldn't then force their views upon others.
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.
