4 Signs that DOMA is doomed

[WorldWatcher]

That isn't the way it is working in the UK.
Gay marriage plans 'not enough' | UK | News | Daily Express

But in a survey, six out of 10 gay people said the Government's plans would not create "equal marriage", and that equality would only be achieved when churches, synagogues and mosques are required to carry out same-sex weddings.

The poll found that half of all LGBT people expect the courts to remove the remaining protections on places of worship.

Are gays in the US somehow different than gays in the UK?

I would love to see the reaction if mosques are required to perform same sex marriage ceremonies. The Christian churches and Jewish synagogues would complain. The mosques will do much more than that.

Would a Christian church conduct a Muslim wedding?
Would a mosque conduct a Christian wedding?

Keep it up. You are a RIOT!!

Is there a demand from gay activists to force religious institutions to conduct same sex marriage ceremonies. Yes. It has nothing to do with forcing one religion to marry adherents to another religion. Don't change the parameters of the demand.

Where is this attempt to force, under the power of government, Churches in the United States to perform same-sex religious weddings?


>>>

 

[Gadawg73]

Its not that easy. You can't move among states and be married or not married

ALL states will have to honor the marital status issued by other states. You can't say.....We accept heterosexual marriages from NY but not gay marriages

Sooner or later the courts will have to weigh in and every state will have to accept gay marriage whether they issued it or not

Different states can have different concealed carry rules, and people choose to go or not to go to a given state because of those rules. With marriage, why would one want to move into a state that doesnt want to support gay marriage if you are in one?

For travel purposes, as long as the state recognizes basics like health coverage, and visitiation rights in hospitals, why would they need to give full marriage recognition to visitors?

The military now openly accepts gays. Those gays are allowed to marry in their home state. What happens when a gay soldier is stationed in Ft Hood Texas and there is a medical emergency with their spouse or children and the state of Texas will not accept the marriage? What about other marital rights when soldiers go off post?

Note also that the military will take any and all steps to make sure the rights of their soldiers will be a priority.
Because the military supports depravity, degenerates and soldiers that have an aberration I am sure!

 

[Gadawg73]

That isn't the way it is working in the UK.
Gay marriage plans 'not enough' | UK | News | Daily Express

But in a survey, six out of 10 gay people said the Government's plans would not create "equal marriage", and that equality would only be achieved when churches, synagogues and mosques are required to carry out same-sex weddings.

The poll found that half of all LGBT people expect the courts to remove the remaining protections on places of worship.

Are gays in the US somehow different than gays in the UK?

I would love to see the reaction if mosques are required to perform same sex marriage ceremonies. The Christian churches and Jewish synagogues would complain. The mosques will do much more than that.

Would a Christian church conduct a Muslim wedding?
Would a mosque conduct a Christian wedding?

Keep it up. You are a RIOT!!

Is there a demand from gay activists to force religious institutions to conduct same sex marriage ceremonies. Yes. It has nothing to do with forcing one religion to marry adherents to another religion. Don't change the parameters of the demand.

I demand my bartender to pour me triples after reading your posts but she doesn't do it.
Because she DOES NOT HAVE TO UNDER ANY LAW.

But keep it up, you are the best show in town!

 

[Katzndogz]

Would a Christian church conduct a Muslim wedding?
Would a mosque conduct a Christian wedding?

Keep it up. You are a RIOT!!

Is there a demand from gay activists to force religious institutions to conduct same sex marriage ceremonies. Yes. It has nothing to do with forcing one religion to marry adherents to another religion. Don't change the parameters of the demand.

Where is this attempt to force, under the power of government, Churches in the United States to perform same-sex religious weddings?


>>>

If we use the experiences of other countries in our own, we are waiting for that to happen here. After all, didn't gays say that acceptance of homosexuality would not lead to acceptance of beastiality. It hadn't happened up to the point where Yale had work shops on the subject.

The best prediction of future performance is past actions.

 

[WorldWatcher]

The key thing here is that at any given time, it should take 2/3 of both houses, and 3/4 of the states to either create governmental protection for a right, or eliminate government protection of that right. It should be difficult EITHER way at the federal level, and not as simple as convicing 5 of 9 unelected lawyers of varying political leanings that your proposed right giving or taking away is a good idea.

To get equal civil rights in this country we needed a civil war, 90 years of jim crow, and a massive civil unrest to get to where we are now. Change that monumental needs actions that monumental, not some $400 lawyer in a suit arguing for you.

I disagree, rights were never intended to be listed and granted by the Constitution, simply look to the 9th Amendment to verify. The framers did not a country in which the only rights that you possed where those listed in a government document. And everyone already has the right to equal treatment under the law which is embodied in the 14th Amendment. It just seems that some people get upset with the idea that same-sex couple deserve the right to that equal treatment (equal, not separate but equal).

If you disagree with the idea of a Supreme Court, then get an amendment passed to strike Article III from the Constitution. I wouldn't hold my breath on that happening though.


>>>>

Rights themselves are not from the government. However to be protected from said government, such a right needs to be in the consitution. That protects them from legislative and judicial action to prevent the free excercise of said right. Anything not so listed, while it could be an intrinsic right, is properly left to the mercies of various legislatures, perferring the state legislatures over the federal one unless specifically mandated by the consitution.

What the consitution does is protect an individual right from the right of the majority to have control over said right, within well defined and stringent limits.

In the balance between the right of a state via its legislature to regulate its marriage contract vs. the individual right to have whatever marriage contract they want, I do not see the consitution explicitly protecting the individual's right to it. Thus it goes to the states. This is the same reason I see DOMA as unconsitutional, as there is no mention of federal control over a state given contract. I DO see loving being valid, as this does meet equal protection, but only as you were denying a man and a woman the same thing another man and women were entiltled to.

DOMA does not attempt to control a state given contract, section 1 makes it very clear that states are free to establish their own Civil Marriage contracts. Section 3 however says that the federal government will discriminate (as in choose which to accept) based strickly and ONLY based on gender.

Loving was valid because the States attempted to deny marriage based on race, a biological condition. Now many states attempt to deny marriage based on gender, also a biological condition. Why is finding denial of equal treatment unconstitutional based on one biological condition valid but not for another biological condition.



>>>>

 

[Gadawg73]

The key thing here is that at any given time, it should take 2/3 of both houses, and 3/4 of the states to either create governmental protection for a right, or eliminate government protection of that right. It should be difficult EITHER way at the federal level, and not as simple as convicing 5 of 9 unelected lawyers of varying political leanings that your proposed right giving or taking away is a good idea.

To get equal civil rights in this country we needed a civil war, 90 years of jim crow, and a massive civil unrest to get to where we are now. Change that monumental needs actions that monumental, not some $400 lawyer in a suit arguing for you.

I disagree, rights were never intended to be listed and granted by the Constitution, simply look to the 9th Amendment to verify. The framers did not a country in which the only rights that you possed where those listed in a government document. And everyone already has the right to equal treatment under the law which is embodied in the 14th Amendment. It just seems that some people get upset with the idea that same-sex couple deserve the right to that equal treatment (equal, not separate but equal).

If you disagree with the idea of a Supreme Court, then get an amendment passed to strike Article III from the Constitution. I wouldn't hold my breath on that happening though.


>>>>

Rights themselves are not from the government. However to be protected from said government, such a right needs to be in the consitution. That protects them from legislative and judicial action to prevent the free excercise of said right. Anything not so listed, while it could be an intrinsic right, is properly left to the mercies of various legislatures, perferring the state legislatures over the federal one unless specifically mandated by the consitution.

What the consitution does is protect an individual right from the right of the majority to have control over said right, within well defined and stringent limits.

In the balance between the right of a state via its legislature to regulate its marriage contract vs. the individual right to have whatever marriage contract they want, I do not see the consitution explicitly protecting the individual's right to it. Thus it goes to the states. This is the same reason I see DOMA as unconsitutional, as there is no mention of federal control over a state given contract. I DO see loving being valid, as this does meet equal protection, but only as you were denying a man and a woman the same thing another man and women were entiltled to.

Yes they are, rights are defined by THE LAW which was written by government.
We are a nation of LAWS, NOT of men and their changing like the wind religious beliefs.
Be glad of that as no matter what your religion is THE LAW, THE CONSTITUTION protects your INDIVIDUAL rights.
We are not a mob rule majority rule democracy and have never been one. The Constitution protects the rights of THE INDIVIDUAL, not the majority.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Is there a demand from gay activists to force religious institutions to conduct same sex marriage ceremonies. Yes. It has nothing to do with forcing one religion to marry adherents to another religion. Don't change the parameters of the demand.

Where is this attempt to force, under the power of government, Churches in the United States to perform same-sex religious weddings?


>>>

If we use the experiences of other countries in our own, we are waiting for that to happen here. After all, didn't gays say that acceptance of homosexuality would not lead to acceptance of beastiality. It hadn't happened up to the point where Yale had work shops on the subject.

The best prediction of future performance is past actions.

So ya got nothing and run to the bestiality meme. I'm surprised you didn't throw in incest and polygamy.

The point is not whether animals will ever gain sentience to the point where they maybe, someday millions of years from now, will be able to enter into a legal contract. The point is whether or not there is a compelling government interest in treating like situated couples differently. Those like situated couples being law abiding, tax paying, infertile, US Citizen, consenting, adults who are in a different-sex relationship and law abiding, tax paying, infertile, US Citizen, consenting, adults who are in a same-sex relationship.


>>>>

 

[martybegan]

I disagree, rights were never intended to be listed and granted by the Constitution, simply look to the 9th Amendment to verify. The framers did not a country in which the only rights that you possed where those listed in a government document. And everyone already has the right to equal treatment under the law which is embodied in the 14th Amendment. It just seems that some people get upset with the idea that same-sex couple deserve the right to that equal treatment (equal, not separate but equal).

If you disagree with the idea of a Supreme Court, then get an amendment passed to strike Article III from the Constitution. I wouldn't hold my breath on that happening though.


>>>>

Rights themselves are not from the government. However to be protected from said government, such a right needs to be in the consitution. That protects them from legislative and judicial action to prevent the free excercise of said right. Anything not so listed, while it could be an intrinsic right, is properly left to the mercies of various legislatures, perferring the state legislatures over the federal one unless specifically mandated by the consitution.

What the consitution does is protect an individual right from the right of the majority to have control over said right, within well defined and stringent limits.

In the balance between the right of a state via its legislature to regulate its marriage contract vs. the individual right to have whatever marriage contract they want, I do not see the consitution explicitly protecting the individual's right to it. Thus it goes to the states. This is the same reason I see DOMA as unconsitutional, as there is no mention of federal control over a state given contract. I DO see loving being valid, as this does meet equal protection, but only as you were denying a man and a woman the same thing another man and women were entiltled to.

DOMA does not attempt to control a state given contract, section 1 makes it very clear that states are free to establish their own Civil Marriage contracts. Section 3 however says that the federal government will discriminate (as in choose which to accept) based strickly and ONLY based on gender.

Loving was valid because the States attempted to deny marriage based on race, a biological condition. Now many states attempt to deny marriage based on gender, also a biological condition. Why is finding denial of equal treatment unconstitutional based on one biological condition valid but not for another biological condition.



>>>>

By denying federal recognition it does place a burden on the states, as the states are the ones that issue the liscense. The feds should have nothing to do with marriage.

One form of biology is a difference in melanin concentration in the skin, a cosmetic diffrerence that did not have anything to do with the fact that it was still a man and a woman trying to get married, which was the accepted model of said contract at the time, and in times past.

The states never defined a man and a woman in the past because no one ever asked, but it was known that that was the requirement. Now when people wanted something different, the states modifed the law to turn the de facto situation where marriage was 1 man 1 woman to de jure 1 man 1 woman. There is no consitutional mechanism to compel a state to grant same sex marriage contracts in my opinion (and I know it is my only my opionion). The right of the states to legislate thier own contracts is not outwieghed here.

 

[martybegan]

I disagree, rights were never intended to be listed and granted by the Constitution, simply look to the 9th Amendment to verify. The framers did not a country in which the only rights that you possed where those listed in a government document. And everyone already has the right to equal treatment under the law which is embodied in the 14th Amendment. It just seems that some people get upset with the idea that same-sex couple deserve the right to that equal treatment (equal, not separate but equal).

If you disagree with the idea of a Supreme Court, then get an amendment passed to strike Article III from the Constitution. I wouldn't hold my breath on that happening though.


>>>>

Rights themselves are not from the government. However to be protected from said government, such a right needs to be in the consitution. That protects them from legislative and judicial action to prevent the free excercise of said right. Anything not so listed, while it could be an intrinsic right, is properly left to the mercies of various legislatures, perferring the state legislatures over the federal one unless specifically mandated by the consitution.

What the consitution does is protect an individual right from the right of the majority to have control over said right, within well defined and stringent limits.

In the balance between the right of a state via its legislature to regulate its marriage contract vs. the individual right to have whatever marriage contract they want, I do not see the consitution explicitly protecting the individual's right to it. Thus it goes to the states. This is the same reason I see DOMA as unconsitutional, as there is no mention of federal control over a state given contract. I DO see loving being valid, as this does meet equal protection, but only as you were denying a man and a woman the same thing another man and women were entiltled to.

Yes they are, rights are defined by THE LAW which was written by government.
We are a nation of LAWS, NOT of men and their changing like the wind religious beliefs.
Be glad of that as no matter what your religion is THE LAW, THE CONSTITUTION protects your INDIVIDUAL rights.
We are not a mob rule majority rule democracy and have never been one. The Constitution protects the rights of THE INDIVIDUAL, not the majority.

The issue is that when we create a consitutional "right" without using the proper amendment process, we open ourselves up to losing our rights the same way. furthermore, the majority in a given state does have a right to legislate how it sees fit, strictly controlled only by the constituion of the federal government and thier own consitution. If those do not explicity ban said legislature from messing with something, it is up to said legislature.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Rights themselves are not from the government. However to be protected from said government, such a right needs to be in the consitution. That protects them from legislative and judicial action to prevent the free excercise of said right. Anything not so listed, while it could be an intrinsic right, is properly left to the mercies of various legislatures, perferring the state legislatures over the federal one unless specifically mandated by the consitution.

What the consitution does is protect an individual right from the right of the majority to have control over said right, within well defined and stringent limits.

In the balance between the right of a state via its legislature to regulate its marriage contract vs. the individual right to have whatever marriage contract they want, I do not see the consitution explicitly protecting the individual's right to it. Thus it goes to the states. This is the same reason I see DOMA as unconsitutional, as there is no mention of federal control over a state given contract. I DO see loving being valid, as this does meet equal protection, but only as you were denying a man and a woman the same thing another man and women were entiltled to.

DOMA does not attempt to control a state given contract, section 1 makes it very clear that states are free to establish their own Civil Marriage contracts. Section 3 however says that the federal government will discriminate (as in choose which to accept) based strickly and ONLY based on gender.

Loving was valid because the States attempted to deny marriage based on race, a biological condition. Now many states attempt to deny marriage based on gender, also a biological condition. Why is finding denial of equal treatment unconstitutional based on one biological condition valid but not for another biological condition.



>>>>

By denying federal recognition it does place a burden on the states, as the states are the ones that issue the liscense. The feds should have nothing to do with marriage.

One form of biology is a difference in melanin concentration in the skin, a cosmetic diffrerence that did not have anything to do with the fact that it was still a man and a woman trying to get married, which was the accepted model of said contract at the time, and in times past.

The states never defined a man and a woman in the past because no one ever asked, but it was known that that was the requirement. Now when people wanted something different, the states modifed the law to turn the de facto situation where marriage was 1 man 1 woman to de jure 1 man 1 woman. There is no consitutional mechanism to compel a state to grant same sex marriage contracts in my opinion (and I know it is my only my opionion). The right of the states to legislate thier own contracts is not outwieghed here.

Except that the 14th Amendment requires of the states equal protection under the law, due process under the law, and that no State can deny privileges and immunities to it's citizens without a compelling government interest in doing so. In other words laws cannot target a given group for invidious and capricious treatment just "cuz". There has to be a reason - one that does not exist based on gender.


>>>>

 

[bodecea]

Which is exactly as it should be.

Which is exactly the way it will be with no changes when gays are allowed to marry.
Do you realize how stupid your claim is?


"We want to get married in your church. You do not want us to, are against it, believe us to be immoral 2nd class citizens but we want to force government to do it"
With demonstrations from the Westboro Baptist Church, you and your gang, all other anti gay marriage at the front of the church to throw tomatoes at them while their friends attempt to throw rice.
You do not even believe the claims you make. You are just throwing bombs away to cover your bigotry.
NO gay or lesbian would want to have a scenario of forced marriages. Anyone that makes that claim does so with no evidence and only out of desperation.

never deal in absolutes. Some asshole will sue a given church/synagouge/temple sooner or later if same sex marriage is determined to be a right.

You wouldnt think people would sue because the 10 commandments on a courthouse face, or a cross on a hill offends them, but they do it anyway.

Just like they've already sued churches for not performing inter-racial marriages? Or for not -performing inter-faith marriages? Or for not performing marriages for divorced people?

There's got to be TONS of those lawsuits that have gone on, right? How have they turned out? For or against the church's right to say who they will or will not marry? Let us know.

 

[bodecea]

Rights themselves are not from the government. However to be protected from said government, such a right needs to be in the consitution. That protects them from legislative and judicial action to prevent the free excercise of said right. Anything not so listed, while it could be an intrinsic right, is properly left to the mercies of various legislatures, perferring the state legislatures over the federal one unless specifically mandated by the consitution.

What the consitution does is protect an individual right from the right of the majority to have control over said right, within well defined and stringent limits.

In the balance between the right of a state via its legislature to regulate its marriage contract vs. the individual right to have whatever marriage contract they want, I do not see the consitution explicitly protecting the individual's right to it. Thus it goes to the states. This is the same reason I see DOMA as unconsitutional, as there is no mention of federal control over a state given contract. I DO see loving being valid, as this does meet equal protection, but only as you were denying a man and a woman the same thing another man and women were entiltled to.

Yes they are, rights are defined by THE LAW which was written by government.
We are a nation of LAWS, NOT of men and their changing like the wind religious beliefs.
Be glad of that as no matter what your religion is THE LAW, THE CONSTITUTION protects your INDIVIDUAL rights.
We are not a mob rule majority rule democracy and have never been one. The Constitution protects the rights of THE INDIVIDUAL, not the majority.

The issue is that when we create a consitutional "right" without using the proper amendment process, we open ourselves up to losing our rights the same way. furthermore, the majority in a given state does have a right to legislate how it sees fit, strictly controlled only by the constituion of the federal government and thier own consitution. If those do not explicity ban said legislature from messing with something, it is up to said legislature.

Rights are "created" by amendment or protected by amendment?

 

[rightwinger]

Different states can have different concealed carry rules, and people choose to go or not to go to a given state because of those rules. With marriage, why would one want to move into a state that doesnt want to support gay marriage if you are in one?

For travel purposes, as long as the state recognizes basics like health coverage, and visitiation rights in hospitals, why would they need to give full marriage recognition to visitors?

The military now openly accepts gays. Those gays are allowed to marry in their home state. What happens when a gay soldier is stationed in Ft Hood Texas and there is a medical emergency with their spouse or children and the state of Texas will not accept the marriage? What about other marital rights when soldiers go off post?

Life is tough sometimes? Just because a problem is sticky doesnt mean we just make crap up in the consitution. What you have to do is convince enough people in the state your position is right, and get the law changed via the legislature, or make a federal amendment forcing the states to do it. Using the courts is not what was intended when the framers set it up.

Here is the Constitutional issue that I see. If one state has declared you to be married, another state cannot nullify that wedding

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.



Marriage is a public act, public record and judicial proceeding. How can one state nulify a wedding performed by another?

 

[martybegan]

DOMA does not attempt to control a state given contract, section 1 makes it very clear that states are free to establish their own Civil Marriage contracts. Section 3 however says that the federal government will discriminate (as in choose which to accept) based strickly and ONLY based on gender.

Loving was valid because the States attempted to deny marriage based on race, a biological condition. Now many states attempt to deny marriage based on gender, also a biological condition. Why is finding denial of equal treatment unconstitutional based on one biological condition valid but not for another biological condition.



>>>>

By denying federal recognition it does place a burden on the states, as the states are the ones that issue the liscense. The feds should have nothing to do with marriage.

One form of biology is a difference in melanin concentration in the skin, a cosmetic diffrerence that did not have anything to do with the fact that it was still a man and a woman trying to get married, which was the accepted model of said contract at the time, and in times past.

The states never defined a man and a woman in the past because no one ever asked, but it was known that that was the requirement. Now when people wanted something different, the states modifed the law to turn the de facto situation where marriage was 1 man 1 woman to de jure 1 man 1 woman. There is no consitutional mechanism to compel a state to grant same sex marriage contracts in my opinion (and I know it is my only my opionion). The right of the states to legislate thier own contracts is not outwieghed here.

Except that the 14th Amendment requires of the states equal protection under the law, due process under the law, and that no State can deny privileges and immunities to it's citizens without a compelling government interest in doing so. In other words laws cannot target a given group for invidious and capricious treatment just "cuz". There has to be a reason - one that does not exist based on gender.


>>>>

Just like any amendment, the line is drawn somehwhere. Evidently equal protection doesnt apply to CCW's even though the right to arms in implicit in the constituion. Also plenty of laws target a certain given group of individuals, progressive tax codes for example.

If we decide gender isnt a requirement, and equal protection is absolute, what at that point stops polygamy, incest, bestiality, or marrying yourself even?

I know its a slippery slope argument, but i am just pointing out the fallacy that equal protection is absolute.

 

[martybegan]

Yes they are, rights are defined by THE LAW which was written by government.
We are a nation of LAWS, NOT of men and their changing like the wind religious beliefs.
Be glad of that as no matter what your religion is THE LAW, THE CONSTITUTION protects your INDIVIDUAL rights.
We are not a mob rule majority rule democracy and have never been one. The Constitution protects the rights of THE INDIVIDUAL, not the majority.

The issue is that when we create a consitutional "right" without using the proper amendment process, we open ourselves up to losing our rights the same way. furthermore, the majority in a given state does have a right to legislate how it sees fit, strictly controlled only by the constituion of the federal government and thier own consitution. If those do not explicity ban said legislature from messing with something, it is up to said legislature.

Rights are "created" by amendment or protected by amendment?

"Constituional" rights are created by amendment. There are intrinsic rights as well, but unless "protected" by the consitution they are fair game for legislation.

 

[bodecea]

The issue is that when we create a consitutional "right" without using the proper amendment process, we open ourselves up to losing our rights the same way. furthermore, the majority in a given state does have a right to legislate how it sees fit, strictly controlled only by the constituion of the federal government and thier own consitution. If those do not explicity ban said legislature from messing with something, it is up to said legislature.

Rights are "created" by amendment or protected by amendment?

"Constituional" rights are created by amendment. There are intrinsic rights as well, but unless "protected" by the consitution they are fair game for legislation.

Rights are inherent....Constitutional amendments spell them out and keep the government from taking them away. Or are you stating that the Constitution (i.e. the government) GIVES us our rights?

 

[WorldWatcher]

By denying federal recognition it does place a burden on the states, as the states are the ones that issue the liscense. The feds should have nothing to do with marriage.

One form of biology is a difference in melanin concentration in the skin, a cosmetic diffrerence that did not have anything to do with the fact that it was still a man and a woman trying to get married, which was the accepted model of said contract at the time, and in times past.

The states never defined a man and a woman in the past because no one ever asked, but it was known that that was the requirement. Now when people wanted something different, the states modifed the law to turn the de facto situation where marriage was 1 man 1 woman to de jure 1 man 1 woman. There is no consitutional mechanism to compel a state to grant same sex marriage contracts in my opinion (and I know it is my only my opionion). The right of the states to legislate thier own contracts is not outwieghed here.

Except that the 14th Amendment requires of the states equal protection under the law, due process under the law, and that no State can deny privileges and immunities to it's citizens without a compelling government interest in doing so. In other words laws cannot target a given group for invidious and capricious treatment just "cuz". There has to be a reason - one that does not exist based on gender.


>>>>

Just like any amendment, the line is drawn somehwhere. Evidently equal protection doesnt apply to CCW's even though the right to arms in implicit in the constituion. Also plenty of laws target a certain given group of individuals, progressive tax codes for example.

Article IV Section 1, Full Faith and Credit - it allows for Congress to determine the effect of public acts. They did that in the United States Code Section 18 regarding firearms.

If we decide gender isnt a requirement, and equal protection is absolute,

First of all your arguing against a Strawman of your own creation as I didn't say it was absolute, just that there needed to be a valid government interest. To date none has been provided that survives a logical examination.

what at that point stops polygamy,

Already examined and upheld by the SCOTUS.

incest,

Could be possible. However young age incest is typically and abusive situation in which their is a valid reason to prevent abuse. For older adults, not so much.

My sisters lived together in the North East in the town we grew up in. My oldest sister had serious health problems with kidney failure, heart issues, blindness, etc. and move back in with my middle sister when they were in their 50's who because the primary care giver. Life would have been much easier in terms of dealing with hospitals, tax, financial arrangements, etc if they were extended the same considerations as Civilly Married folks.

bestiality,

Get back to us when animals are legally recognized to sign contracts.

or marrying yourself even?

Civil Marriage establishes a legal family relationship with another non-related person.

I know its a slippery slope argument, but i am just pointing out the fallacy that equal protection is absolute.

I'll agree your slippery slope arguments are silly and you are arguing with yourself. I didn't say that equal protection was absolute.



>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

The military now openly accepts gays. Those gays are allowed to marry in their home state. What happens when a gay soldier is stationed in Ft Hood Texas and there is a medical emergency with their spouse or children and the state of Texas will not accept the marriage? What about other marital rights when soldiers go off post?

Life is tough sometimes? Just because a problem is sticky doesnt mean we just make crap up in the consitution. What you have to do is convince enough people in the state your position is right, and get the law changed via the legislature, or make a federal amendment forcing the states to do it. Using the courts is not what was intended when the framers set it up.

Here is the Constitutional issue that I see. If one state has declared you to be married, another state cannot nullify that wedding

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.



Marriage is a public act, public record and judicial proceeding. How can one state nulify a wedding performed by another?

1. States "nullify" weddings from other states all the time, they are called divorces.

2. With that said the the premise is that State A isn't "nullifying" the Civil Marriage from State B. They are just not recognizing it in State A, the couple is still Civilly Married in State B. (Which is different then a divorce which does end the Civil Marriage.)

3. The "How" is found in the end of the section you quoted. Congress gets to define what effect of public acts between states.



>>>>

 

[martybegan]

Except that the 14th Amendment requires of the states equal protection under the law, due process under the law, and that no State can deny privileges and immunities to it's citizens without a compelling government interest in doing so. In other words laws cannot target a given group for invidious and capricious treatment just "cuz". There has to be a reason - one that does not exist based on gender.


>>>>

Just like any amendment, the line is drawn somehwhere. Evidently equal protection doesnt apply to CCW's even though the right to arms in implicit in the constituion. Also plenty of laws target a certain given group of individuals, progressive tax codes for example.

Article IV Section 1, Full Faith and Credit - it allows for Congress to determine the effect of public acts. They did that in the United States Code Section 18 regarding firearms.



First of all your arguing against a Strawman of your own creation as I didn't say it was absolute, just that there needed to be a valid government interest. To date none has been provided that survives a logical examination.




Already examined and upheld by the SCOTUS.



Could be possible. However young age incest is typically and abusive situation in which their is a valid reason to prevent abuse. For older adults, not so much.

My sisters lived together in the North East in the town we grew up in. My oldest sister had serious health problems with kidney failure, heart issues, blindness, etc. and move back in with my middle sister when they were in their 50's who because the primary care giver. Life would have been much easier in terms of dealing with hospitals, tax, financial arrangements, etc if they were extended the same considerations as Civilly Married folks.



Get back to us when animals are legally recognized to sign contracts.

or marrying yourself even?

Civil Marriage establishes a legal family relationship with another non-related person.

I know its a slippery slope argument, but i am just pointing out the fallacy that equal protection is absolute.

I'll agree your slippery slope arguments are silly and you are arguing with yourself. I didn't say that equal protection was absolute.



>>>>

For your sisters, power of attorney laws would allow for this easily.

as for the animals, yes a silly argument i know, but you have nutters out there trying to make animals the legal equivalent of humans, so you never know.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Just like any amendment, the line is drawn somehwhere. Evidently equal protection doesnt apply to CCW's even though the right to arms in implicit in the constituion. Also plenty of laws target a certain given group of individuals, progressive tax codes for example.

Article IV Section 1, Full Faith and Credit - it allows for Congress to determine the effect of public acts. They did that in the United States Code Section 18 regarding firearms.



First of all your arguing against a Strawman of your own creation as I didn't say it was absolute, just that there needed to be a valid government interest. To date none has been provided that survives a logical examination.




Already examined and upheld by the SCOTUS.



Could be possible. However young age incest is typically and abusive situation in which their is a valid reason to prevent abuse. For older adults, not so much.

My sisters lived together in the North East in the town we grew up in. My oldest sister had serious health problems with kidney failure, heart issues, blindness, etc. and move back in with my middle sister when they were in their 50's who because the primary care giver. Life would have been much easier in terms of dealing with hospitals, tax, financial arrangements, etc if they were extended the same considerations as Civilly Married folks.



Get back to us when animals are legally recognized to sign contracts.



Civil Marriage establishes a legal family relationship with another non-related person.

I know its a slippery slope argument, but i am just pointing out the fallacy that equal protection is absolute.

I'll agree your slippery slope arguments are silly and you are arguing with yourself. I didn't say that equal protection was absolute.



>>>>

For your sisters, power of attorney laws would allow for this easily.

Powers of Attorney do not create all the same rights, responsibilities, and benefits of Civil Marriage.

For example no matter a POA would not change their tax filing, it did nothing for inheritance, and (after my older sister passed) would have done nothing for the tax exemption of a spouse upon the sale of a home.


>>>>