homosexual's file suit in Tn

[9thIDdoc]

Again, however a state might configure its marriage laws, whatever the requirements, same-sex couples are qualified in all 50 states to access those laws, or the laws associated with being married.

And, again, one of those laws in many places is that the person you marry must be of the opposite sex so you are wrong.

Wrong again.

Well over a generation ago, longer in some states, the doctrine of coverture was abandoned; marriage in all 50 states is a contract between two equal partners:

As states moved to recognize the equality of the sexes, they eliminated laws and practices like coverture that had made gender a proxy for a spouse’s role within a marriage. FF 26-27, 32. Marriage was thus transformed from a male-dominated institution into an institution recognizing men and women as equals. Id. Yet, individuals retained the right to marry; that right did not become different simply because the institution of marriage became compatible with gender equality.

The evidence shows that the movement of marriage away from a gendered institution and toward an institution free from state-mandated gender roles reflects an evolution in the understanding of gender rather than a change in marriage. The evidence did not show any historical purpose for excluding same-sex couples from marriage, as states have never
required spouses to have an ability or willingness to procreate in order to marry. FF 21. Rather, the exclusion exists as an artifact of a time when the genders were seen as having distinct roles in society and in marriage. That time has passed.

Gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage; marriage under law is a union of
equals.

Hollingsworth v. Perry

Entirely beside the point even if you had linked your source which you didn't. Equality of the sexes has nothing to do with the requirement that the participants be of the opposite sex. That has been, and continues to be, the legal requirement in Tennessee and I think it would be foolish to expect that to change anytime soon. Maybe you would be well advised to try minding your own business. We Tennesseans can handle our affairs quite well without outside harassment. But feel free to spend a lot of time and money whining to whatever court (if any)is willing to listen to you only to have them tell you the same thing. I'll be more than happy to say "I told you so!" when the dust clears and the status quo remains. On this issue-as is usual for you-you stand staunchly against civil rights.

 

[The Rabbi]

"The Full Faith and Credit Clause—Article IV, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution—provides that the various states must recognize legislative acts, public records, and judicial decisions of the other states within the United States. It states that "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State." The statute that implements the clause, 28 U.S.C.A. § 1738, further specifies that "a state's preclusion rules should control matters originally litigated in that state." The Full Faith and Credit Clause ensures that judicial decisions rendered by the courts in one state are recognized and honored in every other state. It also prevents parties from moving to another state to escape enforcement of a judgment or to relitigate a controversy already decided elsewhere, a practice known as forum shopping.

In drafting the Full Faith and Credit Clause, the Framers of the Constitution were motivated by a desire to unify their new country while preserving the autonomy of the states. To that end, they sought to guarantee that judgments rendered by the courts of one state would not be ignored by the courts of other states. The Supreme Court reiterated the Framers' intent when it held that the Full Faith and Credit Clause precluded any further litigation of a question previously decided by an Illinois court in Milwaukee County v. M. E. White Co., 296 U.S. 268, 56 S. Ct. 229, 80 L. Ed. 220 (1935). The Court held that by including the clause in the Constitution, the Framers intended to make the states "integral parts of a single nation throughout which a remedy upon a just obligation might be demanded as of right, irrespective of the state of its origin.""



Full Faith and Credit Clause legal definition of Full Faith and Credit Clause. Full Faith and Credit Clause synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

Note that it applies t litigation, not marriage licenses. States have had broad power to set marriage requirements for some time.

That’s not at issue, and it never was.

Again, however a state might configure its marriage laws, whatever the requirements, same-sex couples are qualified in all 50 states to access those laws, or the laws associated with being married.

Couples do not have rights. Only individuals have rights.
This particular argument has already been debunked.

 

[The Rabbi]

No one is denying gay couples any civil liberties. There is no inherent civil right to have an abnormality treated as norman behavior. It has nothing to with the civil rights of black people because one is skin color and another is behavior. There is no inherent civil right to engage in
behavior.

Of course same-sex couples’ civil liberties are being violated, they have the civil right to equal protection of the law in the context of substantive due process.

Tennessee is denying them that.

And being homosexual is not an ‘abnormality,’ as the 5th Amendment’s Liberty Clause guarantees each person the right to individual self-expression, to determine for himself his own personal identity free from interference by the state.

The sad fact is this was once a conservative principle, lost to conservatives decades ago, a result of the madness that is the social right and Christian fundamentalism.

There is nothing in the 5th amendment that guarantees the right to gay marriage. Another canard.

 

[The Rabbi]

"The Full Faith and Credit Clause—Article IV, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution—provides that the various states must recognize legislative acts, public records, and judicial decisions of the other states within the United States. It states that "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State." The statute that implements the clause, 28 U.S.C.A. § 1738, further specifies that "a state's preclusion rules should control matters originally litigated in that state." The Full Faith and Credit Clause ensures that judicial decisions rendered by the courts in one state are recognized and honored in every other state. It also prevents parties from moving to another state to escape enforcement of a judgment or to relitigate a controversy already decided elsewhere, a practice known as forum shopping.

In drafting the Full Faith and Credit Clause, the Framers of the Constitution were motivated by a desire to unify their new country while preserving the autonomy of the states. To that end, they sought to guarantee that judgments rendered by the courts of one state would not be ignored by the courts of other states. The Supreme Court reiterated the Framers' intent when it held that the Full Faith and Credit Clause precluded any further litigation of a question previously decided by an Illinois court in Milwaukee County v. M. E. White Co., 296 U.S. 268, 56 S. Ct. 229, 80 L. Ed. 220 (1935). The Court held that by including the clause in the Constitution, the Framers intended to make the states "integral parts of a single nation throughout which a remedy upon a just obligation might be demanded as of right, irrespective of the state of its origin.""



Full Faith and Credit Clause legal definition of Full Faith and Credit Clause. Full Faith and Credit Clause synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

Note that it applies t litigation, not marriage licenses. States have had broad power to set marriage requirements for some time.

"The Full Faith and Credit Clause has also been invoked to recognize the validity of a marriage."

The use of the passive voice to disguise information is noted.

 

[Unkotare]

Note that it applies t litigation, not marriage licenses. States have had broad power to set marriage requirements for some time.

"The Full Faith and Credit Clause has also been invoked to recognize the validity of a marriage."

The use of the passive voice to disguise information is noted.

I was simply quoting (directly) from a source - one you have supposedly read. Take it easy.

 

[Two Thumbs]

4 same-sex couples sue Tennessee over gay marriage

God damnit! Not in the south damnit! Keep that garbage up north or out west...we can not let these queers get a foot hold in the south...this shit goes through I will be looking for a different state to move to.

anyone else think he's a paid poster pretending to be a rep?

 

[choosy]

Sorry, I don't understand this discussion. What´s wrong of being homosexual? For example: Our Secretary of State and our Major of Berlin are homosexual. Is there any Problem? Since 1989 same-sex couples can get married in Denmark. Why not?

Greetings from Germany ;-)

 

[WorldWatcher]

Note that it applies t litigation, not marriage licenses. States have had broad power to set marriage requirements for some time.

That’s not at issue, and it never was.

Again, however a state might configure its marriage laws, whatever the requirements, same-sex couples are qualified in all 50 states to access those laws, or the laws associated with being married.

Couples do not have rights. Only individuals have rights.
This particular argument has already been debunked.

That's not necessarily true. Take the Loving v. Virginia case about a black woman and a white man. Each was allowed to marry as an individual, so under your logic - the SCOTUS should have upheld the law since neither was denied marriage. They could both marry, just not as a couple.

It was their treatment as a couple along racial lines that was found unconstitutional.


>>>>

 

[rightwinger]

Sorry but as Tennesseeans we have the right to make our own State laws. If you like your State's law better than ours nobody is going to force you to move here. When in Rome...

Unless those laws violate the Constitution

This is not a constitutional issue.
And no matter how much you wish it, the issue is up to each individual State.

As married homosexual couples vistit and move to states where their marriage is suddenly not recognized I think it becomes a constitutional issue. There will be a myriad of legal issues as gay couples lose their rights.

The Constitutions Full Faith and Credit clause and 14th amendment will be invoked

 

[MonaGonna]

And being homosexual is not an ‘abnormality,’ .

Of course it is. Regardless of considerations of the law, social mores, etc. it is obviously not the norm. You don't have to apply any value judgment to the term for it to be accurate.

For all the times you called someone an idiot..., then you post this? What a fucking closet faggot idiot you are.

 

[The Rabbi]

That’s not at issue, and it never was.

Again, however a state might configure its marriage laws, whatever the requirements, same-sex couples are qualified in all 50 states to access those laws, or the laws associated with being married.

Couples do not have rights. Only individuals have rights.
This particular argument has already been debunked.

That's not necessarily true. Take the Loving v. Virginia case about a black woman and a white man. Each was allowed to marry as an individual, so under your logic - the SCOTUS should have upheld the law since neither was denied marriage. They could both marry, just not as a couple.

It was their treatment as a couple along racial lines that was found unconstitutional.


>>>>

They did not enjoy the same rights as white men.
Besides, homosexuals are not blacks. The comparison is frankly odious.

 

[The Rabbi]

Sorry, I don't understand this discussion. What´s wrong of being homosexual? For example: Our Secretary of State and our Major of Berlin are homosexual. Is there any Problem? Since 1989 same-sex couples can get married in Denmark. Why not?

Greetings from Germany ;-)

Nothing wrong with being homosexual per se.
But the state of Tennessee adopted a constitutional amendment that defines marriage in this state as one man and one woman. Now the schwuhlen want to overturn what was democratically adopted and impose some other standard. That is tyranny. The people are the ultimate source of power, not the courts.

 

[MonaGonna]

Sorry, I don't understand this discussion. What´s wrong of being homosexual? For example: Our Secretary of State and our Major of Berlin are homosexual. Is there any Problem? Since 1989 same-sex couples can get married in Denmark. Why not?

Greetings from Germany ;-)

Nothing wrong with being homosexual per se.
But the state of Tennessee adopted a constitutional amendment that defines marriage in this state as one man and one woman. Now the schwuhlen want to overturn what was democratically adopted and impose some other standard. That is tyranny. The people are the ultimate source of power, not the courts.

And what if the law said that Jews couldn't marry, after a democratic vote? Just curious.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Sorry, I don't understand this discussion. What´s wrong of being homosexual? For example: Our Secretary of State and our Major of Berlin are homosexual. Is there any Problem? Since 1989 same-sex couples can get married in Denmark. Why not?

Greetings from Germany ;-)

Nothing wrong with being homosexual per se.
But the state of Tennessee adopted a constitutional amendment that defines marriage in this state as one man and one woman. Now the schwuhlen want to overturn what was democratically adopted and impose some other standard. That is tyranny. The people are the ultimate source of power, not the courts.

Nothing wrong with being interracial marriage per se.
But the state of Alabama adopted a constitutional amendment that defines marriage in that state as only between members of the same race. Then the activists wanted to overturn what was democratically adopted and impose some other standard. That is tyranny. The people are the ultimate source of power, not the courts.


>>>>

 

[The Rabbi]

Sorry, I don't understand this discussion. What´s wrong of being homosexual? For example: Our Secretary of State and our Major of Berlin are homosexual. Is there any Problem? Since 1989 same-sex couples can get married in Denmark. Why not?

Greetings from Germany ;-)

Nothing wrong with being homosexual per se.
But the state of Tennessee adopted a constitutional amendment that defines marriage in this state as one man and one woman. Now the schwuhlen want to overturn what was democratically adopted and impose some other standard. That is tyranny. The people are the ultimate source of power, not the courts.

And what if the law said that Jews couldn't marry, after a democratic vote? Just curious.

Religion is a protected class of people. Gay is not.
Fail.

 

[The Rabbi]

Sorry, I don't understand this discussion. What´s wrong of being homosexual? For example: Our Secretary of State and our Major of Berlin are homosexual. Is there any Problem? Since 1989 same-sex couples can get married in Denmark. Why not?

Greetings from Germany ;-)

Nothing wrong with being homosexual per se.
But the state of Tennessee adopted a constitutional amendment that defines marriage in this state as one man and one woman. Now the schwuhlen want to overturn what was democratically adopted and impose some other standard. That is tyranny. The people are the ultimate source of power, not the courts.

Nothing wrong with being interracial marriage per se.
But the state of Alabama adopted a constitutional amendment that defines marriage in that state as only between members of the same race. Then the activists wanted to overturn what was democratically adopted and impose some other standard. That is tyranny. The people are the ultimate source of power, not the courts.


>>>>

Black is a protected class of people.
Gay is not.
/fail

 

[Unkotare]

And being homosexual is not an ‘abnormality,’ .

Of course it is. Regardless of considerations of the law, social mores, etc. it is obviously not the norm. You don't have to apply any value judgment to the term for it to be accurate.

For all the times you called someone an idiot..., then you post this? What a fucking closet faggot idiot you are.

Something you don't understand, moron?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Nothing wrong with being homosexual per se.
But the state of Tennessee adopted a constitutional amendment that defines marriage in this state as one man and one woman. Now the schwuhlen want to overturn what was democratically adopted and impose some other standard. That is tyranny. The people are the ultimate source of power, not the courts.

Nothing wrong with being interracial marriage per se.
But the state of Alabama adopted a constitutional amendment that defines marriage in that state as only between members of the same race. Then the activists wanted to overturn what was democratically adopted and impose some other standard. That is tyranny. The people are the ultimate source of power, not the courts.


>>>>

Black is a protected class of people.
Gay is not.
/fail

Tell that Colorado that had the anti-homosexual voter approved referendum ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States:

"Amendment 2 violates the Equal Protection Clause."

<<SNIP>>

"(b) In order to reconcile the Fourteenth Amendment's promise that no person shall be denied equal protection with the practical reality that most legislation classifies for one purpose or another, the Court has stated that it will uphold a law that neither burdens a fundamental right nor targets a suspect class so long as the legislative classification bears a rational relation to some independent and legitimate legislative end. See, e.g., Heller v. Doe, 509 U.S. 312, 319 -320. Amendment 2 fails, indeed defies, even this conventional inquiry. First, the amendment is at once too narrow and too broad, identifying persons by a single trait and then denying them the possibility of protection across the board. This disqualification of a class of persons from the right to obtain specific protection from the law is unprecedented and is itself a denial of equal protection in the most literal sense. Second, the sheer breadth of Amendment 2, which makes a general announcement that gays and lesbians shall not have any particular protections from the law, is so far removed from the reasons offered for it, i.e., respect for other citizens' freedom of association, particularly landlords or employers who have personal or religious objections to homosexuality, and the State's interest in conserving resources to fight discrimination against other groups, that the amendment cannot be explained by reference to those reasons; the Amendment raises the inevitable inference that it is born of animosity toward the class that it affects. Amendment 2 cannot be said to be directed to an identifiable legitimate purpose or discrete objective. It is a status-based classification of persons undertaken for its own sake, something the Equal Protection Clause does not permit."


Romer v. Evans​

>>>>

 

[choosy]

Nothing wrong with being homosexual per se.
But the state of Tennessee adopted a constitutional amendment that defines marriage in this state as one man and one woman. Now the schwuhlen want to overturn what was democratically adopted and impose some other standard. That is tyranny. The people are the ultimate source of power, not the courts.

The state of Teenessee is wrong. Also Minorities must be taken into account in a Democracy.

 

[choosy]

Religion is a protected class of people. Gay is not.
Fail.

You can choose your Religion but not your sexual orientation. What does not mean that freedom of religion should not be protected!