Top Republicans urge court to support gay marriage

[Katzndogz]

Marriages licenses are nothing like driver's licenses. For one thing a driver's license from one state only entitles one to drive in another state temporarily. Because states have different laws, a person has to get a driver's license from the new state when they move and comply with all the laws of the new state.

We might find out more when some states start giving out driver's licenses to illegals and another state does not permit illegals to have driver's licenses at all.

 

[martybegan]

And what I'm trying to point out is currently, not the why you think it should be, but the way it currently is, States are not required to accept valid Civil Marriage licenses issued outside the State whether it is a "visit" or a permanent transfer of residence.



>>>>

Then THAT is what the courts can fix. Full faith and credit does apply, just like with a drivers liscense, and what should apply with a concealed carry liscense. However once you move to a state you SHOULD get a liscense from that state, just because people don't do it doesnt make it legal.

Never in the past has it been the practice that when a couple relocates from one State to another that they lost their legally married status and had to obtain a new Civil Marriage license from the new state.

I would bet that if this policy were to go into effect, then differnt-sex couples would be the largest group that would be pissed off when they relocate from one State to another and their Civil Marriage is invalidated until such time as they obtain a new license from the new State to which they have moved.



>>>>

Thats mostly because marriage doesnt have to be renwed every couple of years, like a driver's liscense does. It also does not have an expiration date, which a drivers liscense does have. You can usually get away with your old liscense till it expires. If one would have to renew a marriage liscense it would be more similar, but it is not.

Finally the requirements for driver's liscenses have been standardized due to the very nature of automobile travel. The concept here is that marriage liscenses would not be standardized (which they are not, more so than drivers lisences, full ones, not learners/jr). You wouldnt have to reapply for a new one when you moved, if you had a same sex one in a state that didnt allow it, you just wouldnt be able to use it if you lived in the state.

Otherwise known as "states to avoid"

 

[nodoginnafight]

The list of RINOs gets longer every day, dunnit? And the list of "real" Republicans gets commensurately shorter.

I guess we can thank God for that anyway.

But as "earth shattering" as all these political opinions are, I still think the matter will be decided by legal - not political - principles. Well ... I hope I'm right about that anyway.

 

[Seawytch]

If Jane and Joan get Civilly Married on New York and then move to Georgia, their Civil Marriage is not recognized in Georgia. So no, States are not currently required to accept valid and legal Civil Marriages from outside their own State.


>>>>

here is an idea, don't move to Georgia. However if you want to visit, and you end up in the hospital, your significant other should be able to visit you.

You indicated that States are required to accept Civil Marriage licenses from other states, I was just pointing out that that is not true. Valid Civil Marriages from one State are currently not required to recognized in another State.

I like Virginia, I have no plans to move to Georgia.



>>>>

Only the gay ones. Straight civil marriages are.

 

[bodecea]

You indicated that States are required to accept Civil Marriage licenses from other states, I was just pointing out that that is not true. Valid Civil Marriages from one State are currently not required to recognized in another State.

I like Virginia, I have no plans to move to Georgia.



>>>>

Accept would imply acceptance of transfer, i.e. treated the same as another state's marriage liscense.

What i propose is the states wouldnt have to issue thier own to a same sex couple, however they would have to allow the basics when it comes to people visiting, i.e. hospital visitation, power of attorney, etc.

And what I'm trying to point out is currently, not the why you think it should be, but the way it currently is, States are not required to accept valid Civil Marriage licenses issued outside the State whether it is a "visit" or a permanent transfer of residence.



>>>>

I think it would be funny if they started announcing that people had to get "re-married" in their state if they move there.

 

[nodoginnafight]

A civil marriage is a contract.
A contract is enforceable no matter where you live.

 

[Seawytch]

A civil marriage is a contract.
A contract is enforceable no matter where you live.

Unless you're gay...

 

[nodoginnafight]

A civil marriage is a contract.
A contract is enforceable no matter where you live.

Unless you're gay...

and that is why that I believe that if the argument is won on purely legal grounds, DOMA will die a gavel-pounding death.

 

[Seawytch]

A civil marriage is a contract.
A contract is enforceable no matter where you live.

Unless you're gay...

and that is why that I believe that if the argument is won on purely legal grounds, DOMA will die a gavel-pounding death.

I agree. I believe the SCOTUS will rule narrowly on Pro 8, making marriage legal in CA and will strike down DOMA.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Unless you're gay...

and that is why that I believe that if the argument is won on purely legal grounds, DOMA will die a gavel-pounding death.

I agree. I believe the SCOTUS will rule narrowly on Pro 8, making marriage legal in CA and will strike down DOMA.

I don't see any firm legal ground to get around that.

 

[ArmyCowboy]

The list of RINOs gets longer every day, dunnit? And the list of "real" Republicans gets commensurately shorter.

I guess we can thank God for that anyway.

But as "earth shattering" as all these political opinions are, I still think the matter will be decided by legal - not political - principles. Well ... I hope I'm right about that anyway.

Pretty soon the conservative purity test will allow all real conservative in America the opportunity to hold their meetings in a phonebooth.

 

[nodoginnafight]

The list of RINOs gets longer every day, dunnit? And the list of "real" Republicans gets commensurately shorter.

I guess we can thank God for that anyway.

But as "earth shattering" as all these political opinions are, I still think the matter will be decided by legal - not political - principles. Well ... I hope I'm right about that anyway.

Pretty soon the conservative purity test will allow all real conservative in America the opportunity to hold their meetings in a phonebooth.

with room for a vendor or two no doubt.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Said it so many times, it is not funny... many of us registered REPs/Conservative/Libertarian types support people living with, being with, loving, starting families with whomever they want... and I for one fully support getting government the FUCK out of marriage (except in matters of government such as inheritance, taxation, power of attorney, etc) and recognize all family couples as family units and let the people or churches or whomever else decide whether they wish to deem or accept it has a 'marriage'

You support government getting out of marriage except for matters of inheritance, taxation, power of attorney, etc.


Um. So what exactly would that exclude government from that it currently does that is NOT inheritance, taxation, power of attorney, etc?

The agenda now is for forced acceptance, etc... when given the option of the equality in treatment governmentally in those areas and a different name, gays have shown to be overwhelmingly UNSUPPORTIVE of such an idea, even if the 'straight' married couples get the same name (such as 'family unit or civil union).. all unions of adults into a family are a CHOICE, and people are ALLOWED to discriminate against choice and behavior... well, except in the mind of the gay marriage extremists...

As I have said many times.. I am all for the equal treatment.. not for all the hidden discrimination/protection shit that goes along with it...

I fully accept that many people do not condone or accept my interracial marriage.. and if I were renting or in a privately owned business where it was not wanted, I might not like it but so be it... people have the freedom to be tolerant and accepting just as they have the freedom to be bigoted assholes... all part of the pros and cons that come with freedom

There is no such thing as ‘forced acceptance.’

There is the 14th Amendment.

There is its Equal Protection Clause.

There is the case law that states all persons have the right to equal access to a state’s laws absent a compelling governmental interest. See: Romer v. Evans (1996):

Proposition 8 is un-Constitutional because it “classifies homosexuals not to further a proper legislative end but to make them unequal to everyone else. This [California] cannot do. A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws.” And that includes marriage law.

You and others on the right remain at liberty to hate homosexuals. You may deny them access to your churches or other private organizations, you may disallow them to marry in your churches.

No one is ‘forcing’ you to accept anyone or anything.

You are free to revel in your ignorance and hate of homosexuals and the Constitution and its case law; you are not free, however, to attempt to codify that ignorance and hate, which is what the people of California attempted to do, and why Proposition 8 will be invalidated.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

More like Republican has-beens and nobodies who have little to lose by taking on a party-unfriendly position...

After the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, under Chief Justice Margaret Marshall, handed down the same-sex marriage ruling Goodridge v. Department of Public Health - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, the conservative religious bigotry that tries to keep others unequal started showing cracks.

[youtube]Bob0hEQhKgE[/youtube]

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

A marriage is a civil contract. But it is not the type of contract that has to be honored across state lines.

this explains, for what some people is confusion over the how and why of the legal arguments made in support of same-sex marriages, how cases have been argued and decided

 

[bodecea]

More like Republican has-beens and nobodies who have little to lose by taking on a party-unfriendly position...

After the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, under Chief Justice Margaret Marshall, handed down the same-sex marriage ruling Goodridge v. Department of Public Health - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, the conservative religious bigotry that tries to keep others unequal started showing cracks.

[youtube]Bob0hEQhKgE[/youtube]

Interesting how he had to CLARIFY that he never had homosexual relations before. Did someone ask him that?

 

[Political Junky]

Why Supreme Court Justice Kennedy Will Support Marriage Equality

 

[Katzndogz]

Republicans who now support same sex marriage really just want to put the matter down. They don't see the next battle lines now being drawn. Beastiality in Yale. Incest in Harvard. We are undeniably and inexorably slipping into the worst kind of corruption and degeneracy. We are becoming the modern day version of Caligula's Rome where the rape of boys is expected.

Fortunately just like the other cultures that went down this road it won't last long. America will go into the dustbin of history with others asking what went so wrong.

Someone wrote it long ago. America is great because America is good. When America is no longer good it will no longer be great.

Welcome to the future of the downside.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Republicans who now support same sex marriage really just want to put the matter down. They don't see the next battle lines now being drawn. Beastiality in Yale. Incest in Harvard. We are undeniably and inexorably slipping into the worst kind of corruption and degeneracy. We are becoming the modern day version of Caligula's Rome where the rape of boys is expected.

Fortunately just like the other cultures that went down this road it won't last long. America will go into the dustbin of history with others asking what went so wrong.

Someone wrote it long ago. America is great because America is good. When America is no longer good it will no longer be great.

Welcome to the future of the downside.

America is good because it protects the civil liberties of all its citizens; including the right of same-sex couples to have access to marriage law.

 

[JoeB131]

Republicans who now support same sex marriage really just want to put the matter down. They don't see the next battle lines now being drawn. Beastiality in Yale. Incest in Harvard. We are undeniably and inexorably slipping into the worst kind of corruption and degeneracy. We are becoming the modern day version of Caligula's Rome where the rape of boys is expected.

Fortunately just like the other cultures that went down this road it won't last long. America will go into the dustbin of history with others asking what went so wrong.

Someone wrote it long ago. America is great because America is good. When America is no longer good it will no longer be great.

Welcome to the future of the downside.

If that were the case, America would have gone down when it was practicing slavery and genociding the shit out of native Americans and trying to establish an empire in the Philippines... Those things are more heinous than where people are sticking their johnsons.

Oh, wait,we're talking about the Abrahamic god who is good with slavery and genocide, but thinks that having the wrong kind of sex is bad.