Point about gay marriage

[dorktv]

I was arguing with someone about this on myspace and I pointed out that Article IV section 2 paragraph one of the constitution states that all states have to recognize marriages performed there. Now Loving v. Virginia never made this point so I am not sure what effect it would have on the gay marriage debate but it is worth thinking about is it not?

If someone is gay, marries in MA and then goes back home, should the state not honour that?

[monktonman]

1. yes they should IMO

[sutz12]

2. That's why the fundies are always so up in arms...

whenever someone somewhere else tries to be reasonable about this. There are some political problems with this. Some states have already proposed (and maybe passed) state laws that say they don't have to recognize other states' marriages. I don't think this has been challenged in SCOTUS yet. That might be interesting.

[closeupready]

3. Yes, because DOMA is unconstitutional; however,

I think advocates have tried to slow things down right now until a gay-friendlier Washington/administration come about.

[bryant69]

4. Tricky question

The right answer is that yeah of course they should.

On the other hand tactically, it means that if Gays are allowed to be married anywhere, they are allowed to be married everwhere in the United States. It rules out incremental change. It says that Gays have to win over Texas and Utah and Mississippi and so on and so forth before they can get married anywhere.

Tactically I can see plusses and minuses to pushing that direction.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[IsItJustMe]

5. Constitutionally Yes. It's called the due process claus. What's valid

for one state is valid for another. States must accept other states rules on a whole variety of law.

When a divorce was hard to get, people use to go to Las Vegas because their divorce laws were liberal. These divorces had to be recognized in all states.

[MADem]

6. There was some business in the law about how the couple have to be

RESIDENTS of MA in order to marry.

That said, one can be a resident, and then later decide to move. Here's one discussion on the issue: http://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz200405200836.asp



So the civil-rights analogy makes the issue of same-sex marriage impossible to resolve by federalist principles. If gay marriage is really an issue of fundamental civil rights, you can't let some states prohibit it while others allow it. And gay-marriage advocates — be they private individuals, municipal officials, or judges — do see the issue as a question of fundamental civil rights. For that reason, they will defy or overturn any law that gets in their way.

Events have already made it clear that on the question of same-sex marriage, it's going to be all or nothing. Either we are going to have same-sex marriage everywhere, or we are going to have a Federal Marriage Amendment. After only a single day, assurances that federalism can work on this issue have proved hollow.

I think people oughta stop getting so twitchy about it, and just give the gay folks the same rights as everyone else--I mean, really...what is the big deal??? If it applies to your situation, great, if it doesn't, it's none of your damn business what folks do.

Gay marriage is good for the economy, too. Hell, wedding receptions don't come cheap! You'd think the GOP bid-niz types would figure that out.

[closeupready]

8. I'm sorry, but Kurtz' column makes me laugh now

in hindsight, his sky-is-falling prediction ("once you allow it one place, you have to ALLOW IT EVERYWHERE!!!!").

Didn't quite go that way, did it, Kurtz? :snicker:

[MADem]

10. Well, I didn't especially like the link, to be honest

...but it did spell out the essential features of the arguments surrounding the issue, with a dash of histronics for good measure.

Quite frankly, if we are gonna be FAIR and JUST (such a concept) we SHOULD allow it everywhere. If you are an American citizen, you should be allowed the same liberties as any other American. Of course, there's this mad dance of the Fundies going on, what with defining marriage, and somehow, without actually acknowledging it, attaching this odd religious aspect to it (will churches be FORCED to marry gays??? Oooooooooh!!!!!! Like gays would patronize a church that hates them!!! Because that church is somehow "speshul" ya see!!!!).

The issue keeps rolling along, but the equal rights crowd is probably being strategically smart by picking their battles. So long as it's just us blue state America-haters who are going for this sort of thing, well, that's fine. If they feel as though they are under assault in their mouth-breathing localities, they could get real stinky and slow down the wheels of progress with their portents of doom and gloom.

[donco6]

7. That's why calling it "marriage" is such a big deal.

Civil union is not the same thing. Ergo, Art. IV, Sec 2 doesn't apply.

[MADem]

11. Marriage, a solemn, religious ceremony, presided over by a holy MAN

[donco6]

13. Yeah, like that.

:sarcasm:
:)

[dorktv]

17. then how come they call it a marriage license?

[MADem]

18. Hmmm, hunting license, fishing license, driving license!!!

Welcome to the Church of the Department of Motor Vehicles--praise the Ford!!!!

[AllegroRondo]

9. This was one of the points about mixed race marriage long ago

where the states had a hodge-podge of racial qualifications for who could and could not marry.

In some cases, a widow would lose any inheritance after her dead husband's family sued, claiming that the marriage was not legal in the state they currently lived in. The woman would lose everything. I imagine we will see a lot more of that in the near future.

[geniph]

12. I can't believe we have to fight this same fight all over again

This is exactly the same, as a previous poster pointed out, as the arguments used against "interracial" marriage, when it was legal in some states and not in others. The whole point should be MARRIAGE EQUALITY - whatever is offered to one couple is available to ALL couples. I personally don't think the government has any business in MARRIAGE at all. Civil unions for everyone - marriage equality. Let churches marry people or not as their membership and leadership deem appropriate. Private religious organizations should be able to set their own criteria for marriage, but the state should not be in the business of discrimination.

[Theide]

14. This is not just an American issue.

Don't marriages apply across international borders as well?

If that is so, then a gay marriage of U.S. citizens performed in Thailand or Holland should mean that the U.S. is compelled by international law to recognize the marriage as valid.

If true, just another example of the way in which America blatantly violates International Law when it chooses. (True under both parties)

[SPKrazy]

15. No- but not why you think

No state should honor any marriage

marriage should be a religious institution

legal bonds should be civil contracts and that should be the business of the state

[dorktv]

16. I come from the total opposite viewpoint.

Since the history of marriage has it as a legal institution more then anything.