The Constitution and Gay Marriage

[BOSSHOG]

Could someone please tell me where in the U. S. Constitution it states that gays can not be married. This "gay marriage" argument boggles my mind. Gays can marry now, its legal. If not, why would conservatives have to "amend" the Constitution to enact such a ban? The act of amending the constitution to take liberties away from American Citizens is extremely repugnant to me. I spent 24 years in uniform and my job was not to support and defend the bible. We should not allow religious zealots to force their "beliefs" on the Constitution. Which group of American Citizens will be there next target?

[Shredr]

1. I couldn't agree more.

n/t

[The_Nick]

3. Agreed.

Sad state of affairs.

[smoogatz]

2. "I spent 24 years in uniform and my job was not to support and defend

the Bible."

Quote of the week. Hear hear.

[Sandpiper]

4. The Federal government has no authority to proscribe marriage

As it is a power reserved by the States.

The reason they want a federal marriage amendment is because of the Full Faith and Credit clause.

Under FFC, the several states are obligated to recognize and give "full faith and credit" to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of the other states.

Because some states are moving toward gay marriage, and other states are threatening not to recognize them, the righties are scared shitless that the issue will make it into the Federal Courts under a Full Faith and Credit issue.

That's why they want a Constitutional Amendment, to head off a court battle that they know they will lose.

[northernsoul]

7. What happened to all the states-rights righties

Seems like now that the issue isn't upholding racist Jim Crow laws, they're plenty comfortable having a bunch of politicians inside the beltway make decisions that are supposed to be left to the states. Ya gotta love hypocrisy like that.

[serryjw]

15. 100% correct!

n/t

[northernsoul]

5. marriage is a matter of state law

The U.S. constitution shouldn't have anything to do with it one way or the other. However, my personal opinion is that there is a potential 14th amendment argument that if states are going to be in the business of licensing marriages, they have no rational grounds for discriminating between heterosexual and homosexual marriages so long as they consist of two consenting, unrelated adults. Therefore an amendment of the federal constitution that both abnegates an area of law that is none of Washington D.C.'s cotton-pickin' business (where are all of these states-rights conservatives on this one?) AND is possibly violative of other long-standing constitutional principles makes such an amendment doubly repugnant. You are right to be outraged.

[robcon]

6. I disagree. Same sex marriage is not allowed.

Bosshog wrote: "...Gays can marry now, its legal. If not, why would conservatives have to "amend" the Constitution to enact such a ban? "

Your statement that gays can marry now is untrue, IMO. No state has authorized same sex marriage. Marriage is recognized/regulated by the states, not the federal government, and the various states have different requirements. The Repukes want to prevent any state from becoming a magnet for gay marriage, by forbidding it nationwide with an amendment.

[BOSSHOG]

10. OKAY, has any state authorized

heterosexual marriage? Has any state (prior to this year) banned homosexual marriage? Would that not be a discriminatory act? Do we all have the right to pursue life, liberty and the pursuit, regardless of what state we live in? The amendment attempt is merely hate driven by zealots and as god is my witness it is unconstitutional. I go back to my original question, where in the Constitution is marriage between gays banned?

[serryjw]

16. The same way they prevented inter-racial marriage for

40 years! What right does any state have to dis-allow any marriage? UNDER WHAT GROUNDS??? besides discrimination? This is the last ALLOWABLE discrimination

[robcon]

19. It's not the last allowable discrimination, serrjw.

The law discriminates against minors from drinking, or people under 15, 16, or 17 from being able to have a driver's license. Federal law/constitution discriminates against foreign-born citizens as president, under 25-year olds as Congresspeople, under 35-year olds as Senators. Many states have minimum ages for passing the law bar, getting a medical or nursing license.

Discrimination - masked as 'qualifications for licenses, titles and offices' is all over our country.

[serryjw]

23. Sorry, but I'm not going to lose sleep over the other

'discriminations'. Their reasons, and I think most are valid.

[robcon]

18. You didn't understand my post.

You seem to act as if anything not outlawed is enabled. The regulations in every (or just about every) state is that marriage requires a man and a woman. The fact that same-sex marriage is not outlawed means absolutely nothing. Regulation about marriage prevent same-sex marriage.

Trying to "define away" the problem, BOSSHOG, doesn't solve it, IMO.

[kbm8170]

13. Nonsense

Massachusetts recognizes gay marriages, and at one point the Attorney General of New York indicated that state law required that state to recognize legal marriages in Canada. The essence of the Republican argument is that, since they know they would lose in court, they need that constitutional amendment (hence, the birth of the concept that 'activist" judges are justices who see the word "equal" and take it literally in a constitutional text.)

Frankly, I think those states that rather hastily passed their own constitutional amendments may be in for a heap of trouble down the road. Already Ohio has had some issues over prosecuting domestic violence crimes with hetero couples who are not married. And conservatives are trying in at least one state to get rid of existing domestic partnership arrangements predating their constitutional amendment passage.

Of course, there could be a real interesting side to this whole story. If you establish marriage as being "between one man and one woman" in constitutional law, it might be possible to call into question statutes prohibiting incestual marriages. Since the state's only rational argument in banning those is related to health issues and bearing children, if a sister, for example, could prove to be sterile, the state might have more problems showing that she couldn't marry a brother. Worse, some states already have some relational precedent for that, too. . .for example, in Illinois, first cousins may marry as long as the woman is over 50 and can't bear children.

It should be interesting to watch conservatives try to derail some basic relationship rights legislation in Arizona that has been introduced on the heels of their own constitutional amendment. This bill, which extends basic inheritance, funeral arrangements and health decision rights was immediately slammed by Repugs as "sounds like marriage". This means their approach all along was never about "sanctity" of the institution - it was about discrimination, plain and simple. Special rights indeed.

[gottaB]

8. The Constitutional Argument: Full faith and Credit clause

It comes down to Article IV, Section 1:

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.

This was the reason cited by some liberal Senators for their opposition to DOMA (The Defense of Marriage Act). The act is unconstitutional because it allows states to ignore the full faith and credit clause in cases of same-sex marriage. Recognizing the likelihood that the courts will strike down DOMA, the Christian extremists have pushed for a constitutional amendment to legalize discrimination against gays.

[baldguy]

17. There's an answer to that

If say, SC makes it illegal to recognise a lawful marraige from MA, then MA shouldn't have to recognise marraiges from SC.

[FreedomAngel82]

9. I agree with you

And it's also like the debate on the "Ten Commandments" issue. Why are we debating that as well? There is a thing called the first ammendment. :eyes: I guess they need to rewrite the pledge again then. There's no such thing as "liberty and justice for all" anymore.

[DearAbby]

11. To me the fact is that they would have to ammend it - means there is no

where in the document that prohibits gay marriage. That is a serious clue. The fact that everyone is scrambling to get it onto books in the state level also shows there were no laws prohibiting gay marriage. thats just my opinion, I am no lawyer.

[kbm8170]

14. Exactly. . .there is nothing to debate.

The religious wackos just want the Ten Commandments posted next to official portraits of Bush on every street corner just in case they forget them every few minutes.

[rfkrfk]

12. Progressive states, must lead the way

Progressive states must pass legislation,
allowing gay marriage.
The people of progressive states, clearly want this.
I am aware that there are some federal issues, but
you have to start somewhere.

[independentchristian]

20. In some "State Constitutions" it says it

The Bush "Gay Marriage Amendment" farce was nothing but a scheme to get ignorant people to run out and vote for him. As soon, and I mean, soon, as the election was over he came out and said that he would not "actively pursue" a gay marriage amendment. He also said that he believes that "civil unions" are okay, although he'd leave it up to the states to decide whether they want to allow them or not.

Basically, he said the same thing that Kerry and Edwards were saying all campaign long, and the dump, stupid, idiots who voted for him because they were dumb enought to believe that "if you vote Democrat, you are going to get gay marriage," although Clinton was in office for 8 years and Rosie O'Donnell etc, didn't go on a marrying spree until Bush got into office, the people who voted for Bush went crazy after he said he would not "actively pursue" the amendment and started writing letters demanding that he do it.

What did they get in return? A faint mention of it is the SOTU address, I believe, and it didn't even make the top 10 on the list of priorities for Republican Senators.

Hey, impressionable, single issue voters out there. Don't worry. I'm sure they'll bring the issue back up again next year around election time so that you all can fall for it again. :argh:

[Hippo_Tron]

21. Only next time, Santorum will be on the ticket

And they will believe him.

[independentchristian]

22. We need to destroy Santorum with Moonie connections

Scare the living daylights out of the "religious right," most of which do not have a clue about Bush, Santorum, etc's connections with Sun Myung Moon who claims to be the messiah and is the returning Lord and Savior here to fix what Jesus screwed up.

A Moonie group is leading an effort around the country to get churches to tear down "crosses" off of their churches and throw them into the dumpster, and Bush sent a letter to the group "thanking them for all that they do."

Most Christians don't have a clue about this stuff, now, these "White evangelicals" don't want to believe it when they hear about it, from my experience, but they don't have a clue just how corrupt they are.

Next election, the Democrats need to kick every Moonie in their party out of the Dem party and then run ads exposing every Republican opponent that is involved with the guy.

You'll make most of these "religious voters" think three times before before they vote for one of those guys. I doubt anyone would run an ad exposing that, though. It'd be too smart to do. The Republicans have nothing to run on besides defense and "morals", and if you tear the moral lie out from underneath them, they really won't have anything to run on because defense would fall through the floor, so I know the Democrats won't do that, because they seem content to play fight.