Should state "gay marriage amendments" be unconstitutional ?

[Catchawave]

Virginia's putting one of these "between a man and a woman" resolutions on the Nov 2006 ballot, which is the state GOP's (and our state assembly's majority) way of getting their fundie knuckle-draggers to the polls to vote the party ticket. And, unfortunately, it will probably pass :cry: along with re-electing Sen.George "sweet nectar of liberty" Allen and Rep.Thelma "lips firmly planted on Bush's butt" Drake in VA-02.

My problem with deciding who gets to marry who, seems biblical v. all men are created equal !?

I've also been married for almost 38 years to a member of the opposite sex, and party, and it's lasted this long because it hasn't been based on religion or politics :eyes: just the common sense "golden rule" and a basic respect of choice.

But the "elephant in my living and bed rooms" certainly reeks of homophobia and racism, all things republican :shrug: So maybe, just maybe, we need to introduce legislation that expands to "marriage between donkeys and elephants" should be illegal too!?

Sorry for my stream of consciousness dribble, but all things political should be questioned for common sense, not just votes.

[saltpoint]

1. Near as I can tell, the "between-a-man-and-a-woman" amendments

are Rove-managed hate initiatives designed to drive far-right fundie nutcases to the polls to tilt the balance in close elections so that more Republicans win than Democrats.

I'm sure many of those same fundies think they are doing God's work and expect to be rewarded in the afterlife accordingly.

It's not a very wholesome enterprise to instigate division among people based on sexual preference and it's indefensible to withhold societal and legal privileges from minority populations.

Rove isn't the only guilty party. But his name certainly springs to mind in connection with these amendments.

The Netherlands offers full privileges to any married couple without distinctions, and they have an extraordinarily healthy and productive society.

I think it's about time the United States got a clue in this.

[Catchawave]

5. Thanks sweetie....

..for a moment I thought I lost my mind, and *almost* regretted posting my OP. But, it boggles my mind that republicans do think in terms of hate motivated legislation (dissing gays and abortion) AND in the meantime, supports an immoral war that's killed thousands in the name of PEACE. Oy.

[saltpoint]

16. It helps everyone when a brave someone posts something like

your post here, Catchawave.

Your voice provides a distinction on why people should be critical thinkers: it make sthem better voters. It focuses us on why a registered GOP Christian fundamentalist would stand in line in the rain for hours to vote for a little puke like George W. Bush, even if for no other reason than his pastor told him to because if he didn't, terruh-ists will obvliate St. Louis & homosexuals and lesbians will soon take over the government, the hospitals, the schools, the churches, and Tire Kingdom.

If the rest of us are going to be keen on the issues, we need to see what's motivating those folks.

I've read gobs of your posts on DU and every one of them is worth all our attentions. Keep on keepin' on! :thumbsup: :hi:
:dem:

[Catchawave]

20. Thanks again! Jus' trying to

frame the debate in Falwell/Robertson Country :silly:

Banning "choice" seems to be a religious goal, not a democratic one.

I'm personally against abortion, but I support any woman's right to choose.

I also figured out I don't have to be gay to support my brothers and sisters to live peacefully in that choice either.

Much like I don't have to be a ve*gan to support protecting animals.

I'm just worried sick about more bans against gay marriage will pop up in Nov 2006 state resolutions. It's homophobia at it's sleaziest.

[cmd]

2. "......with liberty and justice for all."

The same people who pledge allegiance to the flag break that pledge at the drop of a hat.

[Ian David]

3. People should have to choose between Universal Health Care...

and banning gay marriage.

Each state gets to pick one: Free Universal Health Care for all your citizens, or banning gay marriage.

Your medicine or your bigotry.

[Catchawave]

6. Raising the minimum wage ?

They fight that one too, makes no sense to me either.

Meanwhile, the last flight I took on a domestic carrier, the whole support team, pilots to mechanics, took pay cuts, but their CEO took a 20 million dollar bonus last year :shrug:

Free health care, no way, until we fly insurance companies the way we fly our airlines!?

[flamin lib]

4. The right needs to figure out that a marriage and a wedding are

two different things. Go to a church and get blessed up one side and down the other and you're not married until you file notice with the government.

Never darken a church's door but file and you're married in the eyes of the government.

Want a divorce? Don't need the blessing of the church but you better get the thing filed with the government!

Marriage conveys about 4000 rights and responsibilities recognized and enforced by power of law, a wedding only a few that can't be enforced by either church or law.

Get over it!

[Catchawave]

7. How about a partnership then?

A living will and partnership contracts seems to be okie-dokie for Mary Cheney and her matey?

She gave up on the religious contracts, and moved on to other legal protections?

Hypocrite that she is for slamming Kerry/Edwards in her book, and alienating the gay community for her non-vocal support during '04, she seems happy?

Why is religion dictating law? That's my point, it should be unconstitutional?

[flamin lib]

8. Yes, laws dictating who laws apply to should be unconstitutional.

Living wills, powers of attorney and partnership contracts cannot cover all of the 4000 or so rights and responsibilities granted by a marriage license.

There is a current controversy over polygamy in a LDS denomination (or cult depending on your outlook) but guess what? The practitioners have not broken any laws! Only one marriage is licensed! The rest are sanctified by the "church" and seen by the state as live in mistresses.

For most of the world sex is a fascination, for the US it's an obsession.

You can give it away, but you can't sell it. You can give it to as many as you want, you just can't tell the State you're giving it to more than one. Once you tell the state you're giving it to someone you have to go back to the state and ask permission to stop.

Too crazy . . .

[Catchawave]

9. My son has a civil union marriage with a woman....

is this what the "law" is about? Long story short, they got pregnant and "tied the knot" for his insurance to kick in for the birth of twins.

So it's a health insurance problem too?

Sidebar: getting married at city hall was on their "to do" list one day 4 years ago. Took them ten minutes. Then they went to Lowe's to buy lawn furniture.

Just wondering, if my son was a daughter, this wouldn't have been possible?

[flamin lib]

11. If your son were a daughter the proposed laws would make the

union illegal. Civil unions are defacto marriages. Just a matter of terminology.

[Catchawave]

12. Thanks...defacto?

LOL....does defacto mean my son broke my heart for denying me the bells and whistles marriage that the Wedding Industry promotes?

Nah.

Now about these state resolutions, I still don't get them and their hate inspired sponsors.

[flamin lib]

14. It will probably break down to a 14th amendment equal protection

argument. If one state recognizes same sex marriage the others must also or none can. Maybe interstate commerce?

Should it ever get to SCOTUS it'll be ugly between state's rights and federal jurisdiction.

It will be as bad as Roe v Wade and probably have the same outcome--neither side can afford to have RvW go away and the same for same sex marriage. Too much of a motivator to the base. That's why every anti-abortion law passed misses the one crucial thing that would make it SCOTUS proof: protection for the life of the mother. If you have a chance read RvW and you'll see what I mean.

[ulysses]

18. what is a "civil union marriage"?

I've never heard of such. When they describe themselves to folks, do they say they're "civil unionized" or "civil union married"?

[Catchawave]

19. Before a judge at city hall

sorta like a Vegas wedding without the Elvis touch :) Not one drop of religion invoked, but more legal than a handshake ?

Heck, my daughter has an internet "minister license" and in some states, she can legally marry people.

I guess I'm confused about what's legal and what's recognized.

Oh and to answer your question, they just say married.

[blm]

10. I agree with you 100% - They should be banned as unconstitutional.

.

[Greyhound]

13. It is specifically unconstitutional.

Article 4, section 1.

"Each State to Honor all others
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."

Pretty straightforward.

[eliphaiku]

15. FF&C

Is traditionally an argument against allowing SSM in any state, since that would effectively allow it in every state.

In fact, FF&C has a public policy exception.

[Greyhound]

17. What?!? Sounds like legislating from the bench to me. n/t