Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The real issue of same-sex marriage is legal recognition. Marriage is a right defined by state law. 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 (and now New York) 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 states 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 Thus, in order for laws providing for same-sex marriage to be given extraterritorial effect, DOMA would have to be repealed by the Congress or declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. See, Andrew Koppelman, Dumb and DOMA: Why the Defense of Marriage Act is Unconstitutional, 83 Iowa L. Rev. 1 (1997); Larry Kramer, Same-Sex Marriage, Conflict of Laws, and the Unconstitutional Public Policy Exception, 106 Yale L.J. 1965 (1997); Mark Strasser, Legally Wed: Same-Sex Marriage and the Constitution (Cornell Univ. Press 1997). 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).
NB: The Administration has recently issued a policy statement that the government will not defend challenges to DOMA based upon constitutional standards.
California just lost the title of the US's gay mecca.
It's now NYC.
Unless SF gets blown (heh) off the map, it isnt happening.
I have been married to the same woman for 35 years, married in a Christian church, raised 3 children in that church and attend church.
Now NY allows same sex marriages.
My marriage will now never be the same and society is doomed to fall into moral decay forever because 2 people of the same sex, that happen to love each other, want to marry and share their lives together.
This must end. Gay marriage will destroy the world. The embers of hell will start to fall on us immediately.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Our ebil plan to take over the world with gay marriage laaazurs (insert finger quotation motion here) is working....BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Where do we draw the line between Church and State? Individual Conscience and the will of the State backed by mandate. What does the State have the Right to Force You to participate in, where, how, and why is that line drawn in the sand?
Let's distinguish between Gay Coupling or Marriage Rights, and their desire to force others to participate against their will and conscience, by mandate. Why exactly can't we have one without the other? Is it that your Ethics are okay, because you are special, but mine are not?
It is right for you to impose your will on me because......
Someone is forcing you to participate in a gay marriage? They can do that? Who knew?
You are confused about the point. The issue is whether Clergy should be forced by the Power of the State to perform, preside over, Gay Weddings, under Penalty of Law.
Take a step back and recheck your premise.
California just lost the title of the US's gay mecca.
It's now NYC.
There was an amendment passed to the very same bill that protected churches from HAVING to perform these weddings. This amendment was passed before the final vote on the gay marriage bill.
Those churches that don't want to marry same sex couples, won't have to... AS IT SHOULD BE.
It's awesome that they legalized. Screw all of you religion-heads who talk about god. Gays have a right to be happy just like anyone else, and call it marriage. God wouldn't be so concerned with a title. He would likely be more concerned with his own followers hating someone else for any reason. Focus on more important things then being self-righteous for once you Christians.
Someone is forcing you to participate in a gay marriage? They can do that? Who knew?
You are confused about the point. The issue is whether Clergy should be forced by the Power of the State to perform, preside over, Gay Weddings, under Penalty of Law.
Take a step back and recheck your premise.
Ok.... I didn't read all the way through this thread... but in case no one brought it up....
There was an amendment passed to the very same bill that protected churches from HAVING to perform these weddings. This amendment was passed before the final vote on the gay marriage bill.
Those churches that don't want to marry same sex couples, won't have to... AS IT SHOULD BE.
I have been married to the same woman for 35 years, married in a Christian church, raised 3 children in that church and attend church.
Now NY allows same sex marriages.
My marriage will now never be the same and society is doomed to fall into moral decay forever because 2 people of the same sex, that happen to love each other, want to marry and share their lives together.
This must end. Gay marriage will destroy the world. The embers of hell will start to fall on us immediately.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Our ebil plan to take over the world with gay marriage laaazurs (insert finger quotation motion here) is working....BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
You are confused about the point. The issue is whether Clergy should be forced by the Power of the State to perform, preside over, Gay Weddings, under Penalty of Law.
Take a step back and recheck your premise.
Ok.... I didn't read all the way through this thread... but in case no one brought it up....
There was an amendment passed to the very same bill that protected churches from HAVING to perform these weddings. This amendment was passed before the final vote on the gay marriage bill.
Those churches that don't want to marry same sex couples, won't have to... AS IT SHOULD BE.
That may be true until a few years from now when somebody gets a case before the supreme court and they rule the exemption as unconstituional. Then NY is stuck with no way to protect the churches from being forced to perform ceremonies against their beliefs.
Ok.... I didn't read all the way through this thread... but in case no one brought it up....
There was an amendment passed to the very same bill that protected churches from HAVING to perform these weddings. This amendment was passed before the final vote on the gay marriage bill.
Those churches that don't want to marry same sex couples, won't have to... AS IT SHOULD BE.
That may be true until a few years from now when somebody gets a case before the supreme court and they rule the exemption as unconstituional. Then NY is stuck with no way to protect the churches from being forced to perform ceremonies against their beliefs.
How many people do you really, really believe want to FORCE a church to perform a marriage?
I have never ever heard of that.
Churches NOW can deny you a marriage in a church to a STRAIGHT couple.
Just another way out there scenario of "well maybe".
Ain't going to happen.
How many people do you really, really believe want to FORCE a church to perform a marriage?
I have never ever heard of that.
Churches NOW can deny you a marriage in a church to a STRAIGHT couple.
Just another way out there scenario of "well maybe".
Ain't going to happen.
That may be true until a few years from now when somebody gets a case before the supreme court and they rule the exemption as unconstituional. Then NY is stuck with no way to protect the churches from being forced to perform ceremonies against their beliefs.
How many people do you really, really believe want to FORCE a church to perform a marriage?
I have never ever heard of that.
Churches NOW can deny you a marriage in a church to a STRAIGHT couple.
Just another way out there scenario of "well maybe".
Ain't going to happen.
Straight couples are not a protected group. Gays are.
How many people do you really, really believe want to FORCE a church to perform a marriage?
I have never ever heard of that.
Churches NOW can deny you a marriage in a church to a STRAIGHT couple.
Just another way out there scenario of "well maybe".
Ain't going to happen.
Straight couples are not a protected group. Gays are.
You avoided my question like a monkey on fire.
Are you claiming a gay couple wants to hold their marriage somewhere that DOES NOT WANT THEM?
Sorry, that makes no sense whatsoever. To hold a wedding, your special day, somewhere where you are not wanted and YOU KNOW you are not wanted.
Gay folks are just like us. They just happen to fall in love with folks of the same sex.
Straight couples are not a protected group. Gays are.
You avoided my question like a monkey on fire.
Are you claiming a gay couple wants to hold their marriage somewhere that DOES NOT WANT THEM?
Sorry, that makes no sense whatsoever. To hold a wedding, your special day, somewhere where you are not wanted and YOU KNOW you are not wanted.
Gay folks are just like us. They just happen to fall in love with folks of the same sex.
No but this is exactly the kind of crap the ACLU loves to do to prove a point.
You avoided my question like a monkey on fire.
Are you claiming a gay couple wants to hold their marriage somewhere that DOES NOT WANT THEM?
Sorry, that makes no sense whatsoever. To hold a wedding, your special day, somewhere where you are not wanted and YOU KNOW you are not wanted.
Gay folks are just like us. They just happen to fall in love with folks of the same sex.
No but this is exactly the kind of crap the ACLU loves to do to prove a point.
But ACLU has to have a client to make a case.
ACLU everyone loves to hate. But Jerry Falwell used them in his case and ACLU is the leader in defending street preachers against no preaching in street municipal ordinance violoation cases. They win everyone and also won the Falwell v. Virginia case.
The ACLU are also the people that defend NMBLA
ACLU Statement on Defending Free Speech of Unpopular Organizations | American Civil Liberties Union
