homosexual's file suit in Tn

[Asclepias]

Yes if what they are doing is not harming anyone and is between 2 consenting adults.

Then it should stay between two consenting adults and not involve everyone else in their lifestyle choices.

I don't see where they are involving you. It is you who are demanding that the government acknowledge your hatred of gays

They've pretty much convinced me they are all closet homosexuals. Their arguments are irrational and emotional. it is astounding that they are so frightened of gay people. They need to come out of the closet.

 

[rightwinger]

No, I'm saying if homos want the state to recognize their "marriage" then they need to move to a state that will. Much like if people want to carry handguns they ought to move to a state that allows it. Or if people want a state that allows late term abortions, they need to go to such a state.
And quit fucking whining about it.

One does not forfeit his civil liberties merely as a consequence of this state of residence; and the people of a given state do not have the authority to decide who will or who will not have his civil rights, as our rights are inalienable.

The right of citizens to move freely about the country is fundamental, that one is a member of a minority in a given jurisdiction does not justify denying that minority its civil liberties, nor is ‘moving to another state’ a viable or Constitutional ‘solution.’

And again you're assuming that same sex marriage is a civil right- which it isn't.
And again you are trying to claim that states are required to accept other states local laws which simply isn't true.

The Constitution can be a bitch can't it?

Full Faith and Credit Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


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.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"So you think you get to vote on what rights others are allowed to have?"

So you think small minorities have the right to redefine the law to suit themselves?

No they do not.

But no one is seeking to ‘redefine’ any law; indeed, same-sex couples merely wish access to marriage law exactly as it exists now, unchanged, un-redefined, law that they are eligible to participate in and benefit from.

That’s the sad irony of this needless controversy, same-sex couples are advocates of marriage and all the institution stands for.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"So you think you get to vote on what rights others are allowed to have?"

So you think small minorities have the right to redefine the law to suit themselves?

Yes if what they are doing is not harming anyone and is between 2 consenting adults.

Then it should stay between two consenting adults and not involve everyone else in their lifestyle choices.

The issue doesn’t involve anyone else.

The issue concerns those motivated by hate seeking to deny same-sex couples their civil liberties.

All the states need do is acknowledge same-sex couples’ 14th Amendment right to access marriage law and this all goes away.

If there’s any ‘fault’ for this it rests solely with the states’ refusal to obey the Constitution.

 

[9thIDdoc]

"This is indeed very much a civil liberties issue: the state of Tennessee is refusing to afford married persons the privileges and immunities of State law based solely on their sexual orientation,..."

1. Tn. isn't refusing married couples anything because it doesn't consider people of the same sex married.
2. And again gays have the same right as anyone to marry someone of the opposite sex. Why should they be given special privileges?

 

[The Rabbi]

It can't be both a mutation and a choice. Those contradict each other.

Pedophilia is also not a mutation. But you know the difference between pedophilia and homosexuality? Pedophilia actually hurts people, children to be specific.

Are you prepared to argue that homosexuality hurts anyone?

Of course htey do not contradict each other.
One has an inclination, that can be genetic.
One acts on it. That's a choice.
Pretty simple.
How much do the consequences of homo behavior cost us in medical bills every year?

What does that have to do with anything?
"Homo behavior" happens, gay marriage or not; who does gay marriage hurt?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/03/your-money/03money.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Or do you just not want gays to have the same benefits you do?

Gay marriage hurts the right of the people of TN to self-governance.

 

[The Rabbi]

One does not forfeit his civil liberties merely as a consequence of this state of residence; and the people of a given state do not have the authority to decide who will or who will not have his civil rights, as our rights are inalienable.

The right of citizens to move freely about the country is fundamental, that one is a member of a minority in a given jurisdiction does not justify denying that minority its civil liberties, nor is ‘moving to another state’ a viable or Constitutional ‘solution.’

No one's civil liberties are forfeited. There is no civil liberty case here. That argument has already been refuted.

Nonsense.

This is indeed very much a civil liberties issue: the state of Tennessee is refusing to afford married persons the privileges and immunities of State law based solely on their sexual orientation, absent a legitimate legislative end and devoid of any factual, objective evidence in support, in clear violation of the 14th Amendment.

Sexual orientation is not a protected class.
Fail.

 

[rightwinger]

Of course htey do not contradict each other.
One has an inclination, that can be genetic.
One acts on it. That's a choice.
Pretty simple.
How much do the consequences of homo behavior cost us in medical bills every year?

What does that have to do with anything?
"Homo behavior" happens, gay marriage or not; who does gay marriage hurt?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/03/your-money/03money.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Or do you just not want gays to have the same benefits you do?

Gay marriage hurts the right of the people of TN to self-governance.

They gave that up when they became a state and accepted the Constitution

 

[Yurt]

Of course htey do not contradict each other.
One has an inclination, that can be genetic.
One acts on it. That's a choice.
Pretty simple.
How much do the consequences of homo behavior cost us in medical bills every year?

What does that have to do with anything?
"Homo behavior" happens, gay marriage or not; who does gay marriage hurt?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/03/your-money/03money.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Or do you just not want gays to have the same benefits you do?

Gay marriage hurts the right of the people of TN to self-governance.

what? you mean to tell me that if gays can marry, citizens of TN can no longer self govern? that doesn't even make sense.

 

[The Rabbi]

What does that have to do with anything?
"Homo behavior" happens, gay marriage or not; who does gay marriage hurt?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/03/your-money/03money.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Or do you just not want gays to have the same benefits you do?

Gay marriage hurts the right of the people of TN to self-governance.

what? you mean to tell me that if gays can marry, citizens of TN can no longer self govern? that doesn't even make sense.

Citizens of TN voted to amend the constitution to define marriage as one man plus one woman. If some other definition is forced on them then it negates their right to self-determination.

 

[The Rabbi]

What does that have to do with anything?
"Homo behavior" happens, gay marriage or not; who does gay marriage hurt?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/03/your-money/03money.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Or do you just not want gays to have the same benefits you do?

Gay marriage hurts the right of the people of TN to self-governance.

They gave that up when they became a state and accepted the Constitution

U.S. Constitution, Amendment X:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

You are so consistently wrong it is comforting to me, Nutsucker.

 

[Yurt]

Gay marriage hurts the right of the people of TN to self-governance.

what? you mean to tell me that if gays can marry, citizens of TN can no longer self govern? that doesn't even make sense.

Citizens of TN voted to amend the constitution to define marriage as one man plus one woman. If some other definition is forced on them then it negates their right to self-determination.

and if they voted to make black people property, that would be ok?

 

[National Socialist]

Can't believe I am agreeing with Rabbi here.

 

[Unkotare]

"... the State [of Virginia] contends that, because its miscegenation statutes punish equally both the white and the Negro participants in an interracial marriage, these statutes, despite their reliance on racial classifications, do not constitute an invidious discrimination based upon race. The second argument advanced by the State assumes the validity of its equal application theory. The argument is that, if the Equal Protection Clause does not outlaw miscegenation statutes because of their reliance on racial classifications, the question of constitutionality would thus become whether there was any rational basis for a State to treat interracial marriages differently from other marriages. On this question, the State argues, the scientific evidence is substantially in doubt and, consequently, this Court should defer to the wisdom of the state legislature in adopting its policy of discouraging interracial marriages. ..."


The battle over inter-racial marriage in the U.S.

 

[Unkotare]

"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.

 

[The Rabbi]

what? you mean to tell me that if gays can marry, citizens of TN can no longer self govern? that doesn't even make sense.

Citizens of TN voted to amend the constitution to define marriage as one man plus one woman. If some other definition is forced on them then it negates their right to self-determination.

and if they voted to make black people property, that would be ok?

No, that would run counter to the 13th Amendment.
How about if they voted to make car insurance mandatory? Would that be OK? What about if they voted to make the speed limit 75MPH on highways? Would that be OK?

 

[National Socialist]

"... the State [of Virginia] contends that, because its miscegenation statutes punish equally both the white and the Negro participants in an interracial marriage, these statutes, despite their reliance on racial classifications, do not constitute an invidious discrimination based upon race. The second argument advanced by the State assumes the validity of its equal application theory. The argument is that, if the Equal Protection Clause does not outlaw miscegenation statutes because of their reliance on racial classifications, the question of constitutionality would thus become whether there was any rational basis for a State to treat interracial marriages differently from other marriages. On this question, the State argues, the scientific evidence is substantially in doubt and, consequently, this Court should defer to the wisdom of the state legislature in adopting its policy of discouraging interracial marriages. ..."


The battle over inter-racial marriage in the U.S.

Va had it right.

 

[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.

 

[rightwinger]

"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.

States not recognizing marriages issued in other states and the 14th amendment will lead to gay marriage being the law of the land

 

[Katzndogz]

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.