Massachusetts Court rules state cannot ban gay marraige

[Imran Siddiqui]

This, combined with the federal Defensive Marriage Act should confine the damage done by Massachusetts to that state as such marriages need not be recognized by other states, nor by the federal government for tax or other Federal purposes.

Like che said, I think this definetly could be unconstitutional. Remember that ole "Full Faith and Credit Clause".

[Ned]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

This, combined with the federal Defensive Marriage Act should confine the damage done by Massachusetts to that state as such marriages need not be recognized by other states, nor by the federal government for tax or other Federal purposes.

Like che said, I think this definetly could be unconstitutional. Remember that ole "Full Faith and Credit Clause".

Check out my post on this much earlier in the thread and tell me what you think after you have read it.

[Shi Huangdi]

Ned: Even if it fails in the Congress, the States could still take up the measure independently. And with the high grassroots support for it, it would seem logical that they will try this route. But the key is that even said amendment fails, the key is in the political effect. A long, drawn out battle in the state legislatures of the country would push this issue to the national agenda and get the issue a lot of media attention. If the Democrats still choose to oppose the amendment, the Republicans get their wedge issue. If they decide to cave in on a constituional amendment banning gay marriage, they would face a revolt in their own party and disgust their own activists.

[Shi Huangdi]

As far as the Unconstitutional argument for the anti-gay marriage acts passed in states:


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.


The Second part could be the key, seeing as how congress has intervened to allow states to not recognize gay marriage in other states.

[Berzerker]

Homosexual marriage? Isn't that a contradiction like claiming heterosexual sex is between two men?

If homosexuals want "civil unions", fine, but "marriage" is a term describing a union between males and females...

[David Floyd]

Berz, I can agree with that, as long as we either extend the legal benefits of "marriage" to "civil unions", or, preferably, repeal them altogether.

But the way I see it is that in a private contract, individuals can define their terms any way they want, and if two men want to call their contract a marriage, then the government should have no right to stop them from doing so.

[Berzerker]

The government doesn't have that right now, but the government is neither obliged to refer to their contract as a marriage nor is it obliged to compel anyone else (like businesses) to treat them as if they are married. There should be no benefits afforded people who are married, at least not wrt the tax code or "subsidies". Government should only involve itself in lines of inheritance, custody, etc...and that goes for all people regardless of sexual orientation...

[Imran Siddiqui]

Ned, I read your post, and I think it wrong. Congress declaring the effect of a state's acts, records, and proceedings doesn't mean they can tell other states they don't have to recognize those decisions of the state. It means they can decide the effects of PROVING the acts, records, and proceedings. The SCOTUS will not interpret it to mean Congress can say you don't have to recognize a marriage in one state.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
Is MJ considered to be a homosexual?

No, paedephilia is not the same thing as homosexuality, unless you're a right-wing bigot.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
Ned: Even if it fails in the Congress, the States could still take up the measure independently.

No state would risk a constitutional convention over gay marraige.

[Ramo]

If homosexuals want "civil unions", fine, but "marriage" is a term describing a union between males and females...

Why should the state mandate that gay relationships be considered second class and not equivalent to straight relationships? And marriage only means that in reactionary places like the US.

[Shi Huangdi]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


No state would risk a constitutional convention over gay marraige.

Assuming the States themselves would control it, I don't see why not.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
Assuming the States themselves would control it, I don't see why not.

Did the states control the last one?

[monolith94]

David Floyd, you're such a romantic!

I can just see it now, your loved on is having a candle lit dinner with you in a small paris cafe, by the Seine, when, you decide to make the big move. You get down on one knee, pull a ring from your pocket, and say:

"My darling, would you engage in a private long-term contract with me?"

[Shi Huangdi]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Did the states control the last one?

There are not hard and set rules for conventions, so as the ones who called it the States would likely control it.