CNN's Question of the Hour: 'Is It Time for Marriage Equality In America?'
It didn't take long for CNN to buy into the hype of New York's legalization of same-sex marriage and pose this question: Is it time for marriage equality in America? CNN asked the question on both the 11 a.m. 12 p.m. EDT hours of Newsroom.
The network referred to the words of New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who stated that he believes "it is time for marriage equality all across the country." Cuomo signed New York's same-sex marriage bill into law over the weekend.
CNN's Carol Costello made sure to point out "staunch conservatives" who are "on board." A clip played of former Vice President Dick Cheney believing people should be free to "enter into any kind of union they wish." Of course, Costello added that Cheney is in favor of letting the states decide the issue.
She mentioned other prominent "conservatives" who support same-sex marriage, like the wife of Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and former President George W. Bush's daughter. Costello did also voice the general opinion of social conservatives against same-sex marriage.
The text of CNN's actual "Talk Back" question was as follows: "Is New York's governor right? Is it time for marriage equality in America?"
A transcript of the segment, which aired on June 27 at 11:04 a.m. EDT, is as follows:
[11:04]
SUZANNE MALVEAUX: Here's your chance to "Talk Back" on one of the big stories of the day. New York passes a law allowing same-sex marriage. And our question: Is it time for marriage equality in America? Is it time for it to be essentially throughout the country? Federal law even? Carol Costello, she's joining us from New York. Hey, Carol. Good to see you.
CAROL COSTELLO, CNN correspondent: Hi, Suzanne. On July 24th, same-sex marriage will be legal in New York, as it is in five other states. It was a bipartisan effort. Yes, four Republican New York State lawmakers voted yes to same-sex marriage. Gay advocates are celebrating and already handing out their roadmap to other states working on same-sex marriage legislation. New York's governor, Andrew Cuomo.
(Video Clip)
Gov. ANDREW CUOMO (D-N.Y.): I believe New York has sent a message to this nation, loud and clear, it is time for marriage equality all across this country.
(End Video Clip)
COSTELLO: Maybe. Nationally, even some staunch Republicans – actually, maybe nationally even some staunch conservatives are on board like Dick Cheney, who has a gay daughter.
(Video Clip)
RICHARD CHENEY, former Vice President of the United States: I think people ought to be free to enter into any kind of union they wish.
(End Video Clip)
COSTELLO: Cheney did add that it's up to each state to decide. Other conservatives are on board, too, like John McCain's wife Cindy, George W. Bush's daughter, Barbara. Advocates say it's a sign young Republicans are much more supportive of this issue. Still, there are plenty people opposed to same-sex marriage. According to Politico, 29 states have enacted some type of constitutional prohibition against same-sex unions. And religious groups like the Catholic Church say New York's vote leaves it worried that both marriage and family will be undermined.
So, the "Talk Back" question today: Is New York's governor right? Is it time for marriage equality in America? Facebook.com/CarolCNN. I'll read your comments later this hour.
- Matt Hadro's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
It doesn't matter. It only
Submitted by Satchmo on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 7:38pm.
It doesn't matter. It only takes one state. Every state has to recognize any same-sex marriage performed by New York under Article IV of the Constitution, even if a state does not permit same-sex marriage. This is a states' rights issue, and the federal government has no business being involved. Additionally, government should get out of it altogether. Two gay people being married to each other in no way effects you or your marriage. This is freedom and liberty.
Unfortunately...
Submitted by BosTarus on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 8:02pm.
I don't think that's true-other states do not need to recognize same sex marriages from the states in which they are legal. I could be mistaken, but my understanding was that only 3 states (NY, RI, and MD) recognized gay marriages from other states (now, of course, NY is on the other side of that list!).
I might be mistaken, but that's my understanding of the situation. Federal law does not recognize gay marriages.
It's the full faith and
Submitted by Satchmo on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 8:08pm.
It's the full faith and credit clause of Article IV. Each state must recognize the court proceedings of other states. Marriage and divorce fall under this. So if you get married in one state, every other state must recognize it.
Article IV - The States
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."
Huh?
Submitted by Unsane on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 8:13pm.
You clearly do not live in TX. The Constitution doesn't remotely matter to you anyway, sick freak, remember? To you, it's a stupid garden-party invite; nothing more, nothing less.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Sorry, Satch...
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 8:26pm.
You are wrong.
Jer
'fraid not.
Submitted by Satchmo on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 9:05pm.
'fraid not.
TX Constitution
Submitted by Unsane on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 9:12pm.
Read the Texas Constitution some time. Very carefully.
Sick freak.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
I would add
Submitted by Boudin on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 9:16pm.
New Hampshire, and the Commonwealth of VA
You might as well be talking
Submitted by Satchmo on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 9:18pm.
You might as well be talking about The Wizard of Oz. It has just as much relevance to this as Texas' Constitution, neither of which supercede Article IV of the US Constitution.
For the Constitutional scholar Incestmo
Submitted by Unsane on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 9:36pm.
That's very fascinating to hear, Incestmo. I guess states aren't sovereign after all, huh?
Since when do you care about the Constitution anyway? Your biggest political hero pays it lip service to the Constitution. You become enraged at the suggestion that the Constitution can and should be preserved, protected and defended and attack those who have done so in the past. You are on record as saying what the states do matter infinitely more than the federal government. So this is quite the turnaround.
There was a case in TX not terribly long ago of a lesbian couple seeking divorce in TX; which was unusual because TX does not recognize same-sex marriage as it is prohibited in its Constitution from doing so. I don't know what became of that case in Austin; I pay more close attention to other things. But I certainly do not remember the intervention of legal scholars such as yourself citing Article IV. Weird, huh?
I realize you are THE supreme expert in all things, but why don't you do me a favor: read the Texas Constitution. And seeing as you are such a superior Constitutional scholar, sue the State of Texas for having an illegal amendment to its Constitution. Why, I am sure you will win your case if you are as so right as you think you are.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Texas' Constitution has
Submitted by Satchmo on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 9:45pm.
Texas' Constitution has nothing to do with this. Article IV did not apply because Texas didn't have to grant a divorce to the lesbian couple. In fact, Texas doesn't have to grant divorces to anyone, but they do have to recognize the marriages and divorces conducted by the other states. Please, I beg you. Learn about the Constitution instead of infecting every thread with your ignorance.
Incestmo the Scholar
Submitted by Unsane on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 10:24pm.
Come on, Scholar. Don't attack ME...attack the Texas Constution. If you are the SUPREME EXPERT on the Constitution that you so claim you are, simply file suit against the State of Texas and go before the SCOTUS and hit them with your extreme brilliance.
I mean, you are SO MUCH MORE BRILLIANT in the Constitution than an attorney (Jer) and people who have actually read the Constitution and case law front and back repeatedly for years and years and years, right?
In spite of Article IV, not only can gay marriage be done in TX, I also cannot carry concealed in NY. And if I do, and I show their cops my CHL, the NY cops will say "So?" and throw me in the slam amyways. So much for Article IV.
I can buy studded tires in AK and WA, but they are 100% illegal in this state. If I were to put studded tires on my truck and drive around with them in TX, only to get pulled over by TX DPS and ticketed, towed, and impounded for my actions, the fact that studded tires are seasonally legal in AK and WA will cut no ice with the State of Texas. So much for Article IV.
The list goes on and on.
And these are yet more examples of something you live for on NB: constantly, routinely attacking people for YOUR VERY OWN FAILINGS. Personally I think it speaks volumes for your inability to accept personal repsonsibility. Quit attacking people for your own failings, grow up, and accept personal responsibility. And take corrective action, such as familiarize yourself with a document you know next to nothing about in spite of your false bravado.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
When last seen,
Submitted by UpNorth on Tue, 06/28/2011 - 12:07am.
Incestmo was slinking to the door, mumbling under his breath, Damn that Unsane, just damn him. How dare he shred my "Full faith and credit" argument, in front of everyone else at NB?
Hey Incestmo, I can carry legally in Michigan, yet not in Illinois, or New York, how's that possible?
I can possess and shoot off fireworks, that explode, in Indiana, yet not in Michigan. Is that because of "Full Faith and Credit"????
What part of public acts,
Submitted by Satchmo on Tue, 06/28/2011 - 12:19am.
What part of public acts, records, and judicial proceedings do you not understand? Article IV does not mean that if a state passes a law, then every other state has to follow that law as well. Good grief. Do you guys not know anything about the Constitution and our founding? Heck, obviously you don't, but can't you read?
So, CCW laws don't apply, but gay marriage laws do,
Submitted by UpNorth on Tue, 06/28/2011 - 12:33am.
so which is it? States have to recognize a gay marriage license in another state, because of Section 1, Article IV, but they don't have to recognize a CCW license, because of Section 1, Article IV?
You claim "Every state has to recognize any same-sex marriage performed by New York under Article IV of the Constitution, even if a state does not permit same-sex marriage", in the first post you made here, yet now, you state "Article IV does not mean that if a state passes a law, then every other state has to follow that law as well" later in the thread. You seem to be suffering from some type of disconnect here.
Or, you're just a troll, crawling out from under your bridge, without any type of grasp of the conversations of adults, on adult subjects.
No, it's not the gay marriage
Submitted by Satchmo on Tue, 06/28/2011 - 7:49am.
No, it's not the gay marriage law that applies to other states, it's the marriages themselves.
And, again,
Submitted by UpNorth on Tue, 06/28/2011 - 11:11am.
I can carry concealed in Michigan, but not in Illinois, why not. It's the carrying itself, not the concealed weapon law.
I'll refer you back to this:
Submitted by Satchmo on Tue, 06/28/2011 - 1:33pm.
I'll refer you back to this: "What part of public acts, records, and judicial proceedings do you not understand?"
Apparently UpNorth understands one hell of a lot ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 06/28/2011 - 9:39pm.
more about them than you do, you myopic, dysfunctional, perverted, lying twit.
Not that there's anything wrong with being that way; but spelling "obsession" with four esses, as you do, SatchelMouth, should warrant jail time.
MD
Something else
Submitted by Unsane on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 9:58pm.
Interestingly, in spite of Article IV, the State of New York will take a VERY dim view of me carrying a concealed handgun. Even if I am licensed to carry concealed here in TX, if I try it the next time I visit NY, I will go to the slam there if I try to carry concealed there. Why is that?
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
So, where'd you get your
Submitted by UpNorth on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 9:23pm.
JD, incestmo, come on, let us know. We're really interested in how you stack up against a lawyer. I know, you're like Alec Baldwin, "it's all right, I played a lawyer in a movie" right? That's how you can be dismissive of what you're told, right?
Satch...please don't argue with me.
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 10:03pm.
At best, it's an open question:
According to Andrew Koppelman, a law professor at Northwestern University and the author of The Gay Rights Question in Contemporary American Law, "No state has ever been required by the full faith and credit clause to recognize any marriage they didn't want to."[17] This issue first arose with regard to interracial marriage. Until the Supreme Court struck down all laws banning interracial marriage in 1967, a number of states banned interracial marriage and did not accept interracial marriage licenses issued in other states.[17] Thus, states were required to recognize an interracial marriage pursuant to the Equal Protection Clause and not pursuant to the Full Faith and Credit Clause.
There has been much speculation on the clause's possible application to same-sex marriage, civil union, and domestic partnership laws and cases, as well as the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment. Between 1996 and 2004, 39 states passed their own laws and constitutional amendments, sometimes called "mini DOMAs," which define marriage as consisting solely of opposite-sex couples. Most of these "mini DOMAs" explicitly prohibit the state from honoring same-sex marriages performed in other states and countries. Conversely, several states have legalized same-sex marriage, either legislatively or by state supreme court judgment.
The Supreme Court has not ruled on how (if at all) these laws are affected by the Full Faith and Credit Clause. However, in August 2007, a federal appeals court held that the clause did require Oklahoma to recognize adoptions by same-sex couples which were finalized in other states.[18]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_Faith_and_Credit_Clause
Jer
And that is the sticky internet turd troll Satchmo in a nutshell
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 10:10pm.
He comes here and states arguments, in nearly every instance weak arguments, as fact. I had my own ready to go. Oh and I know when Uncle Jer says at best, the argument is weak weak weak and pee water weak.
The Constitution can only be
Submitted by Satchmo on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 11:31pm.
The Constitution can only be changed through the amendment process, and Article IV was not amended. Additionally, this is not one of Congress' Constitutionally enumerated powers.
The troll trolls again.
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 06/28/2011 - 1:14am.
Yeah troll, as usual that is how it works. The constitution did not set up and authorize congress to pass laws oh like, I don't know, the DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT. Nope. Everything is frozen in time to the exact moment the constitution was ratified. At least it is in trollietown.
What is it like being the stupid ass for a hat wearing King Beclowner you are?
Yes, that is the originalist
Submitted by Satchmo on Tue, 06/28/2011 - 7:52am.
Yes, that is the originalist viewpoint, held by most conservatives. Then there is the "living document" camp held by most liberals and yourself. Why do you always side with liberals?
The Stupid Lying Incestmo Troll LIES again.
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 06/28/2011 - 8:07am.
Now the troll claims Congress doing its job and passing laws as it was set up to do so by the Constitution EQUALS Living document argument.
See Paultard Run. Run Paultard Run. Wear ass for a hat. Beclown yourself with every post.
It just wouldn't be a Vet
Submitted by Satchmo on Tue, 06/28/2011 - 8:20am.
It just wouldn't be a Vet post if it didn't contain a lie.
Pray paultard pray hard.
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 06/28/2011 - 9:42am.
The Abridged Troll Bible - New Testament.
4. Call others liar over and over without, you know, providing any proof. Dead Zippers: Every time you call me zippers it is a lie. ... And you're lying. ... Just make up more lies. Satchmo: It just wouldn't be a Vet post if it didn't contain a lie.
Proof I am lying King Beclowner?
Wayback machine time boys and girls. Oh look, the paultard is a birther as well as an ass for a hat wearing beclowner.
52. President Obama is not a natural born citizen and therefore is illegal. That is a fact jack and not an extremely weak weak weak argument put forward by birthers. Phweet.
a. His father was not a citizen so that whole election where people still elected him knowing his father was not a citizen and he can't be President, wasted, invalid, unlawfullies.
scorecard
Submitted by Free Stinker on Tue, 06/28/2011 - 9:52am.
The Vet: 7
deranged troll: 0
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
Vet: "Everything is frozen in
Submitted by Satchmo on Tue, 06/28/2011 - 10:41am.
Vet: "Everything is frozen in time to the exact moment the constitution was ratified."
Me: "Yes, that is the originalist viewpoint, held by most conservatives. Then there is the "living document" camp held by most liberals and yourself."
Vet: "Now the troll claims Congress doing its job and passing laws as it was set up to do so by the Constitution EQUALS Living document argument."
Typical misrepresentation and lies. I made no such claim.
Satchmo LIES again.
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 06/28/2011 - 11:37am.
The originalist does not deny Congress the ablility to pass just laws. Only YOU do,.
o·rig·i·nal·ism/əˈrijinlizm/Noun
1. The principle or belief that the original intent of an author should be adhered to in later interpretations of a work.
2. The judicial interpretation of the constitution which aims to follow closely the original intentions of those who drafted it
Busted lying again. You can't even properly wear your as for a hat. You do properly fill the role of King Paultard Beclowner.
"The originalist does not
Submitted by Satchmo on Tue, 06/28/2011 - 1:34pm.
"The originalist does not deny Congress the ablility to pass just laws. Only YOU do,."
You continue with your straw man lie. As if you would do anything else.
This pretty much explains it all
Submitted by SLUGGO on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 10:49pm.
Satchmo, I'm sure everyone here will have much more respect for you if you admit you're wrong about this. In theory, perhaps it works. But the reality is the US Supreme Court will be calling this one, and neither your nor my interpretation of the Constitution matters. Only those 9 who end up deciding it.
Meanwhile it seems the government can't stop kids from buying violent video games. So says Scalia.
Sluggo
Only Thomas ruled correctly
Submitted by Satchmo on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 11:39pm.
Only Thomas ruled correctly on that one.
At best it's an open
Submitted by Satchmo on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 11:35pm.
At best it's an open question? Not taking the originalist's viewpoint, it isn't. States were well within their rights to not issue licenses to interracial couples just as they are within their rights to not allow same-sex marriage; however, by not recognizing the licenses granted by the other states, they were in violation of Article IV, even if that tack weren't pursued legally. At the time, the Equal Protection Clause was likely seen as the best path to get them struck down (and the 14th Amendment is a horrid amendment, which should be repealed. Another blow for states' rights).
Regardless, nothing you've shown here has demonstrated that states can ignore Article IV and not recognize marriage licenses granted by another state. And for the record, DOMA is unconstitutional; the federal government has no say in who can and can't get married. It is a states' issue, and no enumerated power grants Congress the authority.
You've refuted nothing, Jer. You've come back with "open question," "speculation," and "the Supreme Court has not ruled,". Hardly anything resembling a foundation to definitively declare "You're wrong".
I was being generous, Satch...
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 06/28/2011 - 12:59am.
but I'm no longer inclined toward indulging colossal ignorance. You cobble together bits of social policy, constitutional theory, law school advocacy, "gee, this sounds good" emotionalism, a pinch of fourth-grade logic, mixed with a copious helping of your thundering arrogance and spit out yet another of Satch's Immutable Truisms which you no doubt fully expect on some glorious future date to be chiseled into the granite walls of the Supreme Court. In your dreams.
The following are your words--unqualified and unequivocal:
"It doesn't matter. It only takes one state. Every state has to recognize any same-sex marriage performed by New York under Article IV of the Constitution, even if a state does not permit same-sex marriage."
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matt-hadro/2011/06/27/cnns-question-hour-it...
Your statement is not only definitively wrong. It is definitive bullshit.
Jer
Jer, you only left out
Submitted by UpNorth on Tue, 06/28/2011 - 1:12am.
Satch's ignorant statement that, "Article IV does not mean that if a state passes a law, then every other state has to follow that law as well". He's on both sides of this issue.
But, I especially like the "a pinch of fourth-grade logic, mixed with a copious helping of your thundering arrogance". Well said, and yet so eloquently simple.
UpNorth---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 06/28/2011 - 1:19am.
I always enjoy Jer's volleys.
Unless, of course, he is shooting at me. :o)
MD
And now, because Incestmo
Submitted by UpNorth on Tue, 06/28/2011 - 1:33am.
is peering out at the world from belt-high, because he's been handed his head so many times on just one thread, he's fled to Incestmo land. It says something when Incestmo manages to get whacked by so many people of differing philosophies, in one day.
That you cannot discern
Submitted by Satchmo on Tue, 06/28/2011 - 7:56am.
That you cannot discern between the legislative and judicial is your own failing.
Another of the Blowhard's feckless pronouncements
Submitted by Blonde on Tue, 06/28/2011 - 8:00am.
Have you checked your own reading impairment this morning?
I predict yet another retraction by you today. For misreading. Again.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Incestmo is so dense,
Submitted by UpNorth on Tue, 06/28/2011 - 12:16pm.
he makes lead look transparent.
We're truly lucky to have an expert on the constitution like him, not to mention, that he must be an advisor to the SCOTUS, because he's so well versed in what is and isn't constitutional.
He insists that gay marriage, licensed by New York state, must be accepted by all states, yet all states don't have to accept a CCW license issued by a state.
Jer, "Satch's Immutable Truisms"
Submitted by upcountrywater on Tue, 06/28/2011 - 2:20pm.
Satch's Immutable Truisms = ShIT...
lol good one.
You Didn't Build That.
You have done nothing to
Submitted by Satchmo on Tue, 06/28/2011 - 8:02am.
You have done nothing to provide any evidence that it is wrong. The full faith and credit clause is pretty straightforward. If you can make some argument that a marriage does not fall under a public act, record, or judicial proceeding, despite everything to the contrary, have at it.
This is what bothers me, Satch:
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 06/28/2011 - 10:47pm.
You have this offputting habit of making these sweepingly authoritative 'carved-in-stone' pronouncements as if they were established fact and settled law subject to neither reasoned dispute nor reasonable debate.
That's what I mean when I say you are "wrong", not that your argument is utterly devoid of merit--there is indeed a FF & C issue, although the clause must also be viewed in the context of clearly recognized qualifications and limitations--but because of your absolute insistence there is no other possible interpretation or outcome.
Jer
And still nothing supporting,
Submitted by Satchmo on Tue, 06/28/2011 - 11:24pm.
And still nothing supporting, "Your statement is not only definitively wrong. It is definitive bullshit." to accompany your massive backpedal.
Look, Satch...
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 06/29/2011 - 12:30am.
From my second post, I granted it was an open question. True, my rhetoric got a little over the top in the "bullshit" post, and I apologize for that. And if you wish to consider that "backpedaling", go right ahead. But, I explained why your assertion is wrong--and it is wrong--in that you insist that something is clearly settled when it is clearly not.
As far as the merits of the issue, I've now furnished you at least three links which amply demonstrate why your FF & C theory is debatable at best, hogwash at worst. So your claim there is "nothing supporting" (a counterargument) is absurd.
Jer
Additional link.
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 06/28/2011 - 10:53pm.
An interesting analysis of this issue can be found here.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/gay_marriage/act.html
Jer
Jer
Submitted by Radical1979 on Tue, 06/28/2011 - 10:59pm.
You are flogging the proverbial dead horse, beating your head against a brick wall, trying to go upstream without a paddle...when arguing with this guy. Facts and proof mean nothing to him.
But good try.
Ms Rad*
Submitted by cajun2 on Tue, 06/28/2011 - 11:07pm.
It depends on Jer's true goal. If it was to "educate" Incestmo about the Constitution then Jer succeeded. If he was trying to get Incestmo to "comprehend", well then, good try.
Barr saw the light, became a
Submitted by Satchmo on Tue, 06/28/2011 - 11:31pm.
Barr saw the light, became a Libertarian, and renounced DOMA, recognizing its being unconstitutional (which he was fully aware of when he wrote the bill) and an overreach of the federal.
More, Satch...
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 06/29/2011 - 12:11am.
Another article which persuasively illustrates the inherent weakness in relying upon the Full Faith and Credit clause as a vehicle to validate same sex marriages in all states based on their legalization in a single state:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/17/us/bans-on-interracial-unions-offer-pe...
In my opinion, if same sex unions ever achieve the identical legal and definitional status enjoyed by "traditional" marriage, it will be accomplished via the Supreme Court affirming them on constitutional due process and equal protection grounds [as Judge Walker ruled in California]. But, unless and until that occurs, there is scant chance a court will be forced to honor a law or judgment of a sister state which is violative of the public policy of the particular state in which that court exercises jurisdiction.
Jer
"In my opinion, if same sex
Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 06/29/2011 - 12:34am.
"In my opinion, if same sex unions ever achieve the identical legal and definitional status enjoyed by "traditional" marriage, it will be accomplished via the Supreme Court affirming them on constitutional due process and equal protection grounds [as Judge Walker ruled in California]."
I agree with you there, although we would likely disagree on the reason.
Well, I hope you will concede
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 06/29/2011 - 12:59am.
your first two posts are merely a statement of your opinion, viz., a theory [regarding the application in a particular state of the FF & C clause of the Constitution on same sex marriages legally performed in another state] which you share with others--even with some constitutional scholars--but a theory nonetheless, as opposed to settled fact and law.
Jer
The Stupid Lying Satchmo lies again.
Submitted by The Vet on Wed, 06/29/2011 - 7:43am.
Stupid Satchmo troll: I agree with you there...
He is agreeing that IF, I repeat IF, I again repeat IF same sex unions ever achieve the identical legal and definitional status enjoyed by "traditional" marriage, it will be accomplished via the Supreme Court ...
This after the Stupid Satchmo troll spent the ENTIRE DAY insulting everyone saying states HAVE TO RECOGNIZE same sex marriages NOW ---
It only takes one state. Every state has to recognize any same-sex marriage...
Each state must recognize the court proceedings of other states...
'fraid not. (that he is wrong)
Learn about the Constitution instead of infecting every thread with your ignorance...
Do you guys not know anything about the Constitution and our founding?
...applies to other states, it's the marriages themselves.
...do you not understand?" The Constitution can only be changed ...
...that is the originalist viewpoint...
...contain a lie.
Typical misrepresentation and lies.
You continue with your straw man lie.
...by not recognizing the licenses granted by the other states, they were in violation of Article IV.
... you cannot discern between the legislative and judicial...
Up yours viscous sticky internet turd troll. You showed your true troll colors AGAIN.
Jer's doing such a good job, I'm hesitant to join in,
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Wed, 06/29/2011 - 12:02am.
And I'm sure Jer is getting a much needed lesson on the perils of arguing with a stubborn, devoid of facts liberal.
Nevertheless:
"Regardless, nothing you've shown here has demonstrated that states can ignore Article IV and not recognize marriage licenses granted by another state. And for the record, DOMA is unconstitutional; the federal government has no say in who can and can't get married. It is a states' issue, and no enumerated power grants Congress the authority."
So, is it a state's rights issue or not? This has nothing to do with Congress. The state of Texas has banned homosexual marriage. That's it. No amount of bitching by you will make it true that Texas has to accept New York's definition of marriage.
Yes, marriage is a states
Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 06/29/2011 - 12:07am.
Yes, marriage is a states issue, and it is a state's right to ban same-sex marriage (some would argue otherwise, though); however, Texas, or any state that has banned same-sex marriage, must recognize any same-sex marriage granted by another state, according to Article IV, Section 1.
This kind of stupidity don't grow on trees folks.
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Wed, 06/29/2011 - 12:19am.
That might be true if both states defined marriage the same way. Texas defines marriage as between one man and one woman. By your logic, any bigamist traipsing here from another state is legally married to all 12, (or any, for that matter) in Texas. That just isn't true.
The laws and Constitution of one state do not trump the laws and Constitution of another.
Now, back under that bridge with you. Go!
"That might be true if both
Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 06/29/2011 - 12:36am.
"That might be true if both states defined marriage the same way."
No.
"The laws and Constitution of one state do not trump the laws and Constitution of another."
No, but the Constitution trumps both in matters specific to the states, such as Article IV.
Ah, another non-answer
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Wed, 06/29/2011 - 6:16am.
Ya know, I'm beginning to think you don't know what you're talking about.
Prove him wrong.
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 9:13pm.
I have a feeling it has to do with that whole ...the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which... thing.
Number 44 is reserved for Uncle Jer.
Well, I'll be. You actually
Submitted by Satchmo on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 9:21pm.
Well, I'll be. You actually made a post that was relevant to the discussion. Who knew you had it in you?
http://www.usconstitution.net/constquick.html "
"Article 4 concerns the states. Section 1 mandates that all states will honor the laws of all other states; this ensures, for example, that a couple married in Florida is also considered married by Arizona, or that someone convicted of a crime in Virginia is considered guilty by Wyoming."
Hey paultard, we ain't buddies.
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 9:27pm.
Pack sand. Go back to grooming your daugher for incest, calling police officers murderers, advocating late term abortion, saying the US is at fault for attacks by Islamist on us, and other insane rants.
I discuss nothing with the nastiest troll here. Evah.
Shh! Don't ruin it. We have
Submitted by Satchmo on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 9:42pm.
Shh! Don't ruin it. We have something here.
Pack sand.
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 9:49pm.
You advocate abortion right up to the moment of birth and you call our police officers murderers.
You are a viscous sticky turd troll that has been flushed once already and will be flushed for good next time. Pack sand.
The Stupid and Lies that is the Sticky Turd Satchmo ---
43. The Police are murderers. Serious. Tyrannical murderers. Honest. Without warrants. Really. Paramilitary thugs. You are policeman that posts here? You're a thug with a badge; an excuser, enabler, and footsoldier of tyranny. Nothing more.
Go away Troll.
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 9:10pm.
Oonk. Chugga. Chugga. Chugga. Oonk. Chugga. Chugga. Chugga. I think the wayback machine has a flat.
Yeah. You is expert on the OO ES and the consteetooshuns freak show troll.
5. The U.S. does not have a 2 party system.
19. "Disturbing the Peace" laws are phony.
29. The government is here to secure our liberties not protect us even though securing our liberties includes providing things like Police and the Military to protect us.
33. Banning weapons from being carried in federal buildings like oh, I don't know, courthouses, jails, the White House, Congress, banning weapons from those places are unconstitutional. You heard me. You can carry a shotgun into the White House boys and girls
41. The States did not give up their sovereignty when the joined the Republic. They are still sovereign and can make treaties, make war, coin currency....
Wow. The wayback machine had a big load today.
Correct you are...
Submitted by BTW Biological ... on Tue, 06/28/2011 - 4:41am.
Gay marriage for the most part has zero effect on anyone or anything. It is just 2 people of the same sex with a recognized union receiving benefits. However two people of opposite sex the majority does effect everyone, if they choose not to marry it does affect everyone. That is the majority of the times, the rest of times there is no influence, just like with gay marriage.
More importantly Mr. Cuomo,
Submitted by jkwtrading on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 7:42pm.
More importantly Mr. Cuomo, does your constituency recognize same sex marriage..
Did you bother to ask them, poll them or allow them to vote on the issue?
It's called representative
Submitted by Satchmo on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 7:48pm.
It's called representative democracy.
Really? Who represented
Submitted by Boudin on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 9:18pm.
The majority?
You mean this
Submitted by Satchmo on Tue, 06/28/2011 - 1:39pm.
You mean this majority?
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/06/28/q-poll-ny-voters-back-gay-marriage...
You go Paultard. Put on your King Beclowner hat.
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 9:19pm.
And who are the representers in the representative democracy representin'? Huh Paultard?
"Is it time for marriage equality in America?"
Submitted by C-townGiant on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 7:49pm.
Um......no.
Cindy McCain and George W.
Submitted by motherbelt on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 8:02pm.
Cindy McCain and George W. Bush's daughter?
On what basis are they called conservatives?
Cindy McCain isn't even related by marriage to a conservative.
Let the acumen spew forth...
Submitted by Djinn1975 on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 7:58pm.
No Rejecto, it's the left's continued assault on the traditional marriage institution.
I sense
Submitted by SLUGGO on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 8:31pm.
A mass exodus of homophobes from the state of NY is about to take place.
Sluggo
And a mass influx
Submitted by UpNorth on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 9:14pm.
of heterophobes into NY.
As was said to Incestmo, go away, troll.
What is a heterophobe?
Submitted by SLUGGO on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 10:02pm.
My spell checker says it's not a word. Did you mean hydrophobe? That was Dictionary.com's suggestion. That would make little sense. Why would people who fear water suddenly move to NY?
Sluggo
You're done
Submitted by Unsane on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 10:07pm.
When you have to childishly attack people for spelling as you just have, it's a form of surrender here. Congratulations. You just lost the argument.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
You know exactly
Submitted by UpNorth on Tue, 06/28/2011 - 12:12am.
what it means, don't you, Slug? But, if you're learning disabled, or just plain stupid, here's one definition for you, m'kay?
Made up words
Submitted by nkviking75 on Tue, 06/28/2011 - 12:30am.
"Heterophobe" is a made-up word, just as "homophobe" is. The difference is, "homophobe" has been around long enough to gain acceptance as a word. It also helps advance the agenda of the cultural elites. In any case, your spell checker is hardly the final authority on the legitimacy of the word. BTW, my spell checker does not accept "homophobe" either.
“Always love your country — but never trust your government!" -- Bob Novak (1931-2009)
When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.
Maybe, NK, but
Submitted by UpNorth on Tue, 06/28/2011 - 12:38am.
the Urban Dictionary has definitions for both words. So, it would seem they're both accepted. As the issue evolves, I think that "heterophobe" will gain as much acceptance as "homophobe" has.
And, my spell checker doesn't accept the name, "Obama'.
Don't like gay marriage? HOMOPHOBE!!!
Submitted by Unsane on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 9:15pm.
A mass influx of people who believe group rights trupm individual rights into the State of NY will begin.
More electoral votes for the rest of the country.
My dear self-absorbed Leftist, please explain to my why gays should have a right I do not have and have never had and never will have.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Gladly
Submitted by SLUGGO on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 9:57pm.
You will be able to marry an adult of the same sex just like them.
Sluggo
That alarm clock you are hearing is called "reality"
Submitted by Unsane on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 10:04pm.
Actually, I'm straight, yet I cannot marry an adult of the opposite sex. I have ZERO right to get married. NO ONE has the right to get married.
The fact that this has to be explained to you shows what an intellectual weakling you are.
Now, go back and actually read. I know this is a hard thing for a Leftists like you to do, but try me. Explain why gays are entitled to something no one in fact has a right to. If you need to, i will explain it FOR you.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
That alarm clock you are hearing is called "reality"
Submitted by SLUGGO on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 10:05pm.
What is that? A song lyric? And Lame-O was his Name-O.
Please explain which rights a same sex married couple has that you do not.
And please. The "weakling" thing...thanks...now I'm crying.
Sluggo
Keep losing
Submitted by Unsane on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 10:11pm.
Typing smartass comments only shows me your intellectual bankruptcy, weakling. It also shows me that once again you lose because you can't answer a basic, simple question.
I want to know why gays have a right to be married when I have no right to be married. In fact, NO ONE has a right to be married, my self-absorbed, immature Leftist.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
If you don't like my responses stop making halfwitted arguments
Submitted by SLUGGO on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 10:18pm.
What makes you think gays have a right to marry and you don't?
Sluggo
Barking orders like a typical Leftist
Submitted by Unsane on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 10:41pm.
Actually it is your responses that are half witted. Funny how you very stupidly attack people for making "half-witted" arguments when your own are zero-witted ("Don't like gay marriage? HOMOPHOBE! HOMOPHOBE! HOMOPHOBE!"). Your first post, in fact, is nothing more than you wanting people who have no problems with gays but who think the concept of "gay marriage" is silly to be FORCED to SHUT UP. Leftists like you have an insatiable need to force people to shut up because they cannot tolerate debate. I now eagerly await more silly obfuscation from you, like the usual whines of "projection" or other such red herrings, because Leftists live for things as such or for accusing others of what they routinely do.
The central argument that self-absorbed advocates of "group rights" like you make concerning gay marriage is that gays have "a right to marry". Deny it all you want, but I keep running into this theme over and over and over again.
Problem: absolutely no one has the right to marry. No one. Not even straight people.
The reasons you are so obsessed with this notion of gay marriage is any or all of the following:
1) You cherish "group rights" over individual rights. You think individual rights are silly and outmoded and people should have rights based on what group they belong to. Some groups, of course, will by necessity have more rights than others. Me, I prefer individual liberties.
2) You are overwhelmed with pure 100% guilt over missing the civil rights movement by unfortunate timing and need a civil rights movement of your own to make you FEEL GOOD about yourself. I personally find The Golden Rule works best no matter who i am dealing with.
3) You want the issue for some bizarre reason. I think that if civil unions were permitted for gays and lesbians, you wouldn't have an issue, because almost no one, including me, would remotely care about that. Actually, I think that one reason you so badly want the issue is that you and other Leftists can't yet persecute and physically attack the clergy and churchgoers in the street, so you need other ways to poke religion in the eye early and often. The gay marriage issue permits you to do that.
Save it. I last saw the interior of a church at a wedding six years ago. I am not remotely religious.
Save it again. I'm on good terms with several gays with whom i have had more civil discussions on this very topic than you have had with me.
What makes you think gays have any right to marry when heterosexuals don't?
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Hurm...
Submitted by BosTarus on Tue, 06/28/2011 - 12:34am.
I'm legitimately confused by your questioning... it just seems like you're playing with semantics. Did someone claim that heterosexuals "don't have the right" to marry-or is this just about how you interpret the word "right" and that it bothers you that it is thrown around cavalierly in debates such as these?
I'm not trying to pick a fight or sling mud-i'm genuinely asking what you mean. Did someone here claim that straight folk don't have the same rights? If that's not the case-I don't think anyone who's for gay marriage would be claiming it's something that is uniquely their's by right.
Also, very few people on the same-sex marriage side of the fence are looking to legally force churches to accept them. I'm sure they have hopes that at some point in the future that may be the case-but I know the plan isn't to use this legislation to force it upon unwilling religious institutions. Granted, there are crazies among every group, and no one can promise that some gay couple won't try this-but I'm nigh positive that this isn't a part of the strategy by the gay community as a whole. I'm sure you'll disagree-but absolutely no one I know who is a part of this debate is hoping or looking for that outcome. So I think the "forcing-religious-institutions" argument is just fear-baiting and not really grounded in reality.
The basic goal of the gay community is to have the same legal protections granted to married straight couples-hospital visitation, ability to weigh in on matters of spousal estate, etc...
Um, how, exactly, do you "know"
Submitted by UpNorth on Tue, 06/28/2011 - 12:47am.
"very few people on the same-sex marriage side of the fence are looking to legally force churches to accept them"? Which poll did you conduct?
And, "very few people on the same-sex marriage side of the fence are looking to legally force churches to accept them"? You don't mind if I don't take your word on this? Because, when I hear the cry of "We're here, we're queer and we're in your face", I tend to take that to mean that those mouthing the words are intent on pushing their agenda in everyone's faces.
You're right,
Submitted by BosTarus on Tue, 06/28/2011 - 1:41am.
I can't promise that some folks won't try to utilize legislation to force churches to accept them. But it won't work, and you can't let those bad examples become exemplary for the entire movement.
I "know" only in that I have many friends who actively participate in this push-members of the HRC and whatnot; I've signed petitions and receive nearly daily emails and updates from the HRC... anyhow-never is it mentioned that the goal is to force religious acceptance. They're looking for legal acceptance.
"We're here, we're queer, get used to it" doesn't really imply "we're here, we're queer, and we're gonna make your church marry us!"
There may be a secret cabal-a dark room where the gay elite gather and plot and plan... and maybe in there they discuss their secret plans to force churches into marrying them... but if that's the case, it's never talked about in public.
Everyone else just wants the legal acceptance of their local, and hopefully federal, government. Not their churches
Would "some folks" be
Submitted by UpNorth on Tue, 06/28/2011 - 1:48am.
1% of them, 10% of them or 90% of them? Just curious, as to what your take on what they really want is.
And, actually, I kinda think that "We're here, we're queer, get used to it" really does imply that "we're gonna make your church marry us". That's the only way that they will gain the acceptance they so desperately require.
DADT was enacted to allow gays to serve their country, that wasn't enough, they had to be able to serve "openly". Civil marriage won't be enough, marriage with all the trappings, in St Patrick's cathedral will be mandatory.
I'm not sure how
Submitted by BosTarus on Tue, 06/28/2011 - 1:58am.
you can jump to those conclusions... do you know alot of gay activists?
All I can speak to is that 100% of my friends and colleagues involved in this issue, aren't looking to force religious acceptance.
Again, I can't say that that is a large percentage of the gay population... but it's enough for me to draw a pretty healthy assumption based on my world experience. You obviously see it another way.
Maybe you're right, maybe civil marriage won't be enough and they'll start fighting to force church acceptance... BUT I do know that they've been fighting to serve in the military for decades, then fighting DADT for over a decade, and fighting for civil marriages much longer than that... it wasn't a spur-of-the-moment "we got DADT repealed? Let's get married then!
They have not been fighting to force religious institutions-so there's not much history there to assume that'll be their immediate next target-right now they're focusing on getting marriage legalized in more states and on a federal level. You can rest assured that they won't be "attacking" your church any time soon.
Yeah, Bos, right you are---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 06/28/2011 - 2:29am.
much like when the do-gooders said "Prohibiting smoking on commercial airline flights is just that. Suggesting that the ban on smoking would somehow leach into other areas of a smoker's so-called rights is a bit of a stretch, don't you think?"
This is, after all, America.
Rights are whatever the biggest mouths and loudest voices, or legislation, says they are.
MD
I know
Submitted by BosTarus on Tue, 06/28/2011 - 2:45am.
I'm not going to change your mind.
You guys may have inside knowledge that I'm not privy to. I'm just making these assumptions based on my own experiences, friends, and personal knowledge-you are in your own right to doubt the basis of my claims.
I'm just curious though, what evidence do you have that the gay community plans to use this legislation to force churches to marry gay couples?
The evidence, BosTarus, that works for me---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 06/28/2011 - 9:56pm.
is the militant Gay activism that got Proposition 8 back on the ballot, again, after having been voted down the first time by a majority of Californians.
Immediately it went down to defeat the second time, the GLAAD and GLBT flakes started clamoring and threatening to get it on the ballot for a third go round.
This tells me the fools and flamers will push, regardless of majority consensus, to get what they want, the way they want it.
As has been pointed out on these threads before, the Gays will not be satisfied with civil unions because they need the legitimacy of religious rites or sanctions to prove to themselves that they are as "normal" as the people they seek to emulate.
MD
I'm not such a regular
Submitted by BosTarus on Wed, 06/29/2011 - 12:21am.
So I'm afraid I may have missed the threads in which it has been "pointed out" that "the Gays" will not be satisfied... I guess I missed that factoid. My bad. How was it pointed out? What "facts" support such a bold claim?
And how does the gay community's pushing for something they've been fighting for for decades, prove to you that they want something that they haven't even been talking about. I guess I just don't buy this elaborate gay conspiracy theory you're selling.
I'm selling nothing, BosT---
Submitted by matthewdean on Wed, 06/29/2011 - 4:47am.
and care not what you have or haven't seen on these threads,
You asked what evidence I had reference Gays eventually pushing for religious ceremonies for their ilk through legislation; and I told you.
The history of their past actions speaks for itself; that you choose not to hear it is not my concern.
MD
I don't even know where to start with this one
Submitted by SLUGGO on Tue, 06/28/2011 - 8:18am.
So much of this rather impressive diatribe does not even apply to me. Is this a discussion? I think it's you making a sackload of generalized statements surrounded by your complete misunderstanding of what marriage is, and why the church doesn't own it.
Sluggo
And how many more times are you going to edit your entry?
Submitted by SLUGGO on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 10:08pm.
It was one line when I read it, several when I hit reply, and an extra paragraph after my response posted. I don't know what I'm supposed to respond to anymore.
Sluggo
Cue the violins
Submitted by Unsane on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 10:12pm.
I will edit as much as I damn well please. Try something called "patience". And quit blaming others for your intleectualy bankruptcy.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Ref?
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 10:16pm.
The referee has arrived. Allow The Vet to put on his robe......
Point >>>----> Unsane
If it ain't been replied to, it is open game for editing. When you edit a post, the status goes back to *New. This is a clue it has been edited.
Do we need a ref? Are you a fair ref?
Submitted by SLUGGO on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 10:21pm.
I just wanted to alert the gentleman that my reply was in response to a previous version of his comments.
Sluggo
Personal responsibility
Submitted by Unsane on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 10:43pm.
Again, not my fault that you don't want to read, and then think about it. You just merely want to react.
Personal responsibility is a great thing. Try it sometime.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Judge? Can we get a judge?
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 06/28/2011 - 7:51am.
The Judge has arrived. Let me put on my whistle.
Judgement -----> The Vet.
Yes. The Vet is a fair and just ref.
If you feel someone has edited a post to such an extent that your reply is regarding something substantially different, do this. Open your reply in another window, that way the original post is still in the original window. Once you complete your reply and you feel someone's post is substantially different. You are free to edit your post and include the original post to show your grievance.
Thank you, kind sir
Submitted by SLUGGO on Tue, 06/28/2011 - 8:11am.
I'm still getting used to this format. Do you have any tips on permanently switching to the rich text editor? Seems to default back to plain text each time. But I can live with it.
Sluggo
No Sir.
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 06/28/2011 - 9:26pm.
We must all suffer the rich text/plain text switching.
I can make peace with that
Submitted by SLUGGO on Wed, 06/29/2011 - 12:38pm.
But now the entire website has changed! New design unveiling?
Sluggo
Too much government in Marriage
Submitted by Bull Moose Prog... on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 8:40pm.
No!
It is time for government to get out of Marriage because they've screwed it up. For most of us, Marriage is still both a religious and sexual relationship and on both counts government should have nothing to do with it.
All the government needs is common property laws and a state of domestic partnership. What is going on in your place of worship and in your bedroom the government should keep its head out of.
addendum
Submitted by Tjexcite on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 10:10pm.
and keep the government out of ones wallet.
zero to sixty
Submitted by jdlybrand on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 8:51pm.
They went from 'gay rights' to 'marriage equality' in the same amount of time it takes a Porsche to go from zero to sixty.
"What a revoltin' development this is!"
Chester Riley
Marriage Equality?
Submitted by NC Boy on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 8:55pm.
If it's time for that, then bring on the sibling marriages, parent/child marriages, multiple partner marriages. What could possibly be the objection to any of these? I suspect only PETA can stop human/animal marriages - if they want to.
NAMBLA
Submitted by ThisnThat on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 9:26pm.
Don't forget NAMBLA - a political, civil rights, and educational organization whose goal is to end "the extreme oppression of men and boys in mutually consensual relationships." According to them, that is.
These damn sexual deviants, and their supporters (including NB trolls), are completely devoid of moral values. They also don't understand the English language. There is no such thing as gay marriage. The two words don't go together.
__________
“Didn't win the Medal of Honor? Didn't even serve? Then lie about it. We'll support you." — 9th Circuit Court
I never understood
Submitted by BosTarus on Tue, 06/28/2011 - 12:38am.
the attempts to make incest, pedophilia, beastiality, and polygamy the moral equivalent of homosexuality. How is, "if that's legal, why not all this stuff?" a valid, legal argument?
It has always seemed pretty simple to me-marriage is between 2 consenting adults who are not immediately related by blood. That should do it-don't get how you guys can think the gates have been flung wide open.
Clauses
Submitted by Spoon on Tue, 06/28/2011 - 2:07am.
At least you recognize that marriage has restrictions.
"2 consenting adults who are not immediately related by blood"
1. 2 (Two)
2. Consenting
3. Adults
4. Not immediately related by blood
Let's add two more just for fun...
5. Of sound mind
6. Of opposite gender
Consenting... everyone agrees to that, I hope. Can't force someone to marry you.
Adults... Well, sure, no kids getting married. Except... some states it's 18, some it's 16, some as low as 13 as long as the parents give permission. In any case, this could be redundant since it is generally considered that statutory rape exists because a minor can't give consent (that's number two up there).
Of sound mind... too crazy to know right from wrong? Brainwashed? Mentally Handicapped? Again, this is a consent issue, really. I just included it because they CAN say yes, I want to marry so-and-so, but they lose the ability to give legal consent.
Now, while nearly everyone except NAMBLA agrees with the above three things (grey areas abound though... what is the mental status, how old is adult, etc.), there are three qualifiers left.
Closely Related
Opposite Gender
Two (2)
"Gay Rights" activists want to say you can eliminate one qualifier without the other two being an issue? Why? Why is it just 2 people? So what if they're related? Well, society has decided for a VERY long time that marriage needs qualifiers. Marrying someone closely related can lead to a higher risk of genetically inherited conditions. Two parents is a more stable family structure than a harem. A man and woman biologically 'fit' for copulation, no toys or unintended orifices required.
We can test for genetic conditions so why can't mom and son marry? Bro and sis? Dad and daughter? Or, if nothing is wrong with gay marriage, granddad and grandson?
If one parent homes are just as good, or at least good enough, for raising kids, why not three parents? Eight parents? Four Moms, 2 Dads, and a Sis who's also your Aunt?
Marriage has qualifiers whether decreed by God, some other divine being of your choice, or men. Get over it. It's not a right. It's not "2 consenting adults who are not immediately related by blood". In the eyes of the law, it's what the people who vote decide it is. If the people voting are in the Legislature, vote them out if you don't like their definition. If the people voting are the PEOPLE through a referendum or amendment or proposition ##, move if you don't like it. Or, get over it.
As to this statement, "I never understood the attempts to make incest, pedophilia, beastiality, and polygamy the moral equivalent of homosexuality":
Incest: Covered above. Who are you to say that siblings can't marry? So yup, it is "the moral equivalent of homosexuality".
Polygamy: Also above so yup, "the moral equivalent of homosexuality".
Pedophilia: No, not the "the moral equivalent of homosexuality" but still, there are efforts to make the age of consent lower, and lower, and lower.
Bestiality: No, not "the moral equivalent of homosexuality" since animals can't give consent. But if they could, then 'human' really would have to be added as a qualifier to marriage. Or would you say, "Hey, that thinking, talking dog said it wanted to marry Bob. You're just speciesist and a
Canineophobe!"?
So when you say "It has always seemed pretty simple to me" it's because you've decided, on your own, which qualifiers you like, and which you don't. Yup, that's pretty simple. Not much thinking needed at all.
You nailed it
Submitted by BosTarus on Tue, 06/28/2011 - 2:40am.
"society has decided for a VERY long time that marriage needs qualifiers".
Can't argue with that. It is a decision to be made on a societal level. Polygamy and bestiality are deemed wrong because the whole of society deems them so. Homosexuality is not nearly so cut and dry.
Polls show that public support for same sex marriage has been steadily increasing for decades. In the mid 90's, the pro group was only 25% or so. In 2010 and 2011, multiple studies show the approving might beat out the negative (though still within the margin of error). And a 2011 Gallup poll claims that the pro side beats out the negative by more than the margin of error.
Now, you can argue that the polls are inaccurate, biases, skewed... what have you. But you can't deny the fact that support has been steadily increasing over the past 30 years-whether or not you believe it outweighs the opposition.
I know it's mentioned every time this debate comes up, but it's because it's worth mentioning. Society once deemed interracial marriage wrong-but it changed it's collective mind.
Wrong, again
Submitted by ThisnThat on Tue, 06/28/2011 - 8:07am.
Society once deemed interracial marriage wrong - maybe so. But they didn't get the definition of marriage wrong -- one man; one woman. Stop using faulty logic, ok?
__________
“Didn't win the Medal of Honor? Didn't even serve? Then lie about it. We'll support you." — 9th Circuit Court
this whole issue is really
Submitted by TruthMonger on Tue, 06/28/2011 - 11:58am.
this whole issue is really about societal agreement on what marriage is - just like it was socitetal consent in nazi germany to fry up some jews
Congratulations Jimmy Carter!
wait-
Submitted by BosTarus on Tue, 06/28/2011 - 1:49pm.
Their definition of marriage was "between a man and a woman of the same race"-how is that not the "wrong" definition. It isn't faulty logic.
Oh?
Submitted by ThisnThat on Tue, 06/28/2011 - 8:03am.
All of a sudden you define marriage? "It has always seemed pretty simple to me-marriage is between 2 consenting adults who are not immediately related by blood."
How about "Marriage is between a man and woman instead"? Your definition stinks. The queers' so-called definition stinks even more. Here's a suggestion -- stop trying to re-define marriage in the first place!
__________
“Didn't win the Medal of Honor? Didn't even serve? Then lie about it. We'll support you." — 9th Circuit Court
No one is trying to redefine
Submitted by Satchmo on Tue, 06/28/2011 - 8:16am.
No one is trying to redefine it.
How far behind. . .
Submitted by rickbren on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 9:38pm.
. . . is polygamy? Marrying your mother, your brother, your dog. . .???
They've found their Orwellian catch-phrase
Submitted by lgeubank on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 10:06pm.
Ah, yes -- "marriage equality." Pervert parity, if you will -- the dogma that a liaison between two deviants of the same sex is equal and just as normal as marriage. It's a sign of a sick and decadent society.
It will be fun
Submitted by Tjexcite on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 10:13pm.
If they have a gay love in protest outside the ground zero mosque.
Who defines 'equality'?
Submitted by Slyrr on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 10:35pm.
What is 'equality' according to Democrats, CNN and this Cuomo person?
Just gays? Or will they branch out when the incest crowd cries 'what about our equality?'
'The right side of history'
Submitted by Slyrr on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 10:38pm.
This isn't the first time or place where a nation/people tried to 'redefine' marriage to make allowances for gayness. The ancient Greeks tried it too. As I recall, they had an 'all gay' army at one point.
How'd that work out?
If being gay is 'the right side of history', then how come all the previous attempts to globalize/normalize/socialize gayness have failed? Why didn't all the other nations embrace 'the right side of history' when the Greeks were blazing the trail thousands of years ago?
Technically equality already
Submitted by Rusty Shackleford on Tue, 06/28/2011 - 12:07am.
Technically equality already exists. Assuming they chose to marry, heterosexuals Charlie Sheen and Tiger Woods would not receive state recognition of their relationship while homosexuals Rosie O'Donnell and Clay Aiken would. The laws simply dictate that one member of the contract be male and the other an unrelated female, and neither can currently be married to another. Sexuality has nothing to do it it, and in fact recognizing gay relationships would cause the government to endorse gender discrimination since gay relationships, by their definition, exclude a gender.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Matthews: The Joy Behar of MSNBC.
Bill Maher: The Joy Behar of HBO.
Paul Krugman: The Joy Behar of The New York Times.
Question for Satchmo
Submitted by Model850 on Tue, 06/28/2011 - 5:11pm.
You maintain that the full faith and credit clause requires other states to recognize a gay marriage performed elsewhere (where it's legal). If your interpretation is correct why are lawyers arguing for legalization of gay marriage in states where it is not permitted?
What's the point? If state A must recognize a gay marriage performed in state B (or specifically, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire, and now, New York) then can't gays just go get married in one of those states and return to state A and DEMAND their so-called "equal rights" as a legally married couple, citing Article IV of the Constitution?
Seems like a slam dunk according to your theory. Now, why doesn't that work? Seems a lot easier than years and years of protesting, lobbying, and suing. Maybe it's just me.
"You maintain that the full
Submitted by Satchmo on Tue, 06/28/2011 - 8:20pm.
"You maintain that the full faith and credit clause requires other states to recognize a gay marriage performed elsewhere (where it's legal). If your interpretation is correct why are lawyers arguing for legalization of gay marriage in states where it is not permitted?"
You'll have to be specific, which lawyers and which states?
Why?
Submitted by Model850 on Wed, 06/29/2011 - 3:11pm.
Why do you require specificity to respond to a simple question? Does it really matter which lawyers or which states? But if you want to go that route....
Since lawyers make up the bulk of state legislatures I'll use New York. Why were the lawyers in the legislature arguing for passage of the bill if all they needed to do was tell gays "Go get married in a state where it's legal now, come back here to New York and we will have no recourse but to recognize your marriage. We don't need no stinking law! We may eventually get around to passing our own law but for now, you don't really need one."
Why? Because I want to know
Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 06/29/2011 - 3:45pm.
Why? Because I want to know the basis of their arguments and what means they are using, if they exist. Your question is akin to a journalist using the "some say..." tactic.
And no, that was weak logic in your second paragraph.
Diversionary tactics
Submitted by Model850 on Wed, 06/29/2011 - 4:18pm.
Sorry, Satch. I'm going to quit playing your little game of divert the argument.
Not sure how asking a simple question about why gays continue the years long effort to legalize marriage when, according to your argument, it is unnecessary, is akin to a "some say" tactic. It was you who postulated the premise, so I guess that makes you the "some" in "some say."
The "weak logic" you dismiss is your logic, based on your FF&C argument. That you refuse to answer the question and instead whine about the need for "specifics" tells me you don't have an answer (because Jer has effectively demolished your position) and you're just stalling for time.
Fail.
<plonk>
I'm not diverting the
Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 06/29/2011 - 4:28pm.
I'm not diverting the argument. You made a vague claim, and I asked you to specify. Also, your question was not "why gays continue the years long effort to legalize marriage," but "why are lawyers arguing for legalization of gay marriage in states where it is not permitted?" How can I even answer your question without knowing what specific legal arguments these alleged lawyers are putting forth?
Asking you to identify the lawyers and the states is not diverting the argument. The weak logic was your trying to equate an entire body of legislators with that of your ghostly lawyers pursuing a legal argument.
Convoluted logic, obfuscation, and verbal ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Wed, 06/29/2011 - 11:37pm.
gymnastics.
And yet you, SatchelMouth, bring up the "strawman" principle in so many of your posts it's as though you learned a new phrase, don't like it, and are trying to beat it to death.
MD