Massachusetts Court rules state cannot ban gay marraige

[GePap]

Interestingly enough, after looking at two different dictionaries into the definitions of marriage, matrimony, and spouse, not in a single one of them was it stated that two individual of different sexes were manditory- so the notion that the word can only explain a union between two persons of a different sex is based more on prejudice than any evidence. And of course this is ignoring the fine reality that the exact definition and usage of words change with time.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I wonder if Ramo likes being confused with MrFun.

You could get better at trolling if you try harder.

[Ned]

Originally posted by 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.

The Full Faith and Credit clause:

"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."


Imran, you will first agree that the first sentence of this clause imposes obligations only upon the states to recognize the "public acts," etc., of the other states. It imposes no similar obligation upon the federal government to recognize the "public acts" of any state. This implies supremacy by the federal government vis-à-vis the states with respect to the public acts of the states.

The second sentence of the clause permits Congress to do two things with respect to such public acts:

1) prescribe the manner in which such acts ... shall be proved; and
2) prescribe the effect thereof.

I think the language is very clear that this is a proper construction of the second sentence. It also seems sensible given that the federal government has supremacy itself has no obligation to recognize the public acts of a state. Consistent with the commerce clause, the federal government has power to regulate relations between the states that the states themselves do not have. So while the states must recognize the public acts of other states, they are also subject to the power of the federal government to regulate the effect of those public acts.

The bottom line is that The Defense of Marriage Act seems sufficient to defend both the United States and individual states that do not recognize gay marriages from being required to recognize such marriages. This being said, if a particular state wishes to authorize gay marriages, it clearly has the power to do so under the Constitution. But it does not have the right to impose its views on other states or the United States by virtue of the Defense of Marriage Act. I think this reflects a fair balance and acknowledges states rights. For this reason I personally would oppose a constitutional amendment that would prohibit states wanting to do so from authorizing gay marriages. I think the that the Defense of Marriage Act is sufficient.




Defense of Marriage Act

"No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship."

[Berzerker]

Gepap, going just on my Webster's New Collegiate under both "marry" and "marriage, the first sentence refers to husband and wife and the second sentence refers to men and women or a man and a woman.

[GePap]

I looked under Websters New World and American Heritage dictionaries, and I could probably look at more.

2 to 1 here...

Plus, that still ignores the fact that usage changes..a polygamous marriage is still a marriage, even if it would not fit under your dictionaries definition.

[Berzerker]

Polygamy fits the definition, it doesn't say 1 man and 1 woman, just a husband and wife. Polygamists generally marry one at a time... Besides, polygamy is an ancient practice and was probaly far more common than monogamy. But are we going to start looking at multiple dictionaries and keep a running tally? C'mon, we can't separate the word from it's origins and practices.

[Ned]

Even in polygamy, the marriage is between a man and a woman. The women are not married to each other.

[mindseye]

Originally posted by Berzerker
"Marriage" has a meaning and it doesn't include 2 people of the same gender.
(...)

Surely you are not claiming that the meaning of words does not change? If so, you are wonderful, fantastic, and marvelous.

C'mon, we can't separate the word from it's origins and practices.

The practices of marriage haven't changed? Historically marriage has been practiced in a wide variety of ways. Besides polyandry and polygamy, marriage could be between a man and his 14-year old cousin. It was more often about property or inter-family ties than about romance or love. It could be arranged by parents while the couple were still children. It could involve a husband seeing his wife for the first time at their wedding. It could be between two males (early Christian church, and southeastern China). In fact, marriage as you refer to it is a relatively recent phenomena.

I wonder how you feel about 20th century changes to divorce laws. Was that an equally objectional departure from origins and practices?

[Imran Siddiqui]

I think the language is very clear that this is a proper construction of the second sentence. It also seems sensible given that the federal government has supremacy itself has no obligation to recognize the public acts of a state. Consistent with the commerce clause, the federal government has power to regulate relations between the states that the states themselves do not have. So while the states must recognize the public acts of other states, they are also subject to the power of the federal government to regulate the effect of those public acts.

The bottom line is that The Defense of Marriage Act seems sufficient to defend both the United States and individual states that do not recognize gay marriages from being required to recognize such marriages. This being said, if a particular state wishes to authorize gay marriages, it clearly has the power to do so under the Constitution. But it does not have the right to impose its views on other states or the United States by virtue of the Defense of Marriage Act. I think this reflects a fair balance and acknowledges states rights. For this reason I personally would oppose a constitutional amendment that would prohibit states wanting to do so from authorizing gay marriages. I think the that the Defense of Marriage Act is sufficient.

Once again, I think you are wrong. One, the commerce clause ONLY refers to commerce, not relations between the states. You cannot use the commerce clause for marriage. Therefore you cannot tell other states that they do not have to recognize marriages from Mass.

Second, your reading makes it possible for a judicial penalty (ie, like the death penalty) to be avoided if the Federal government decides that a non-DP can 'protect' someone sentanced to death. That would be ridiculous.

[Ramo]

It's not about being second class, it's about words and their definitions. "Marriage" has a meaning and it doesn't include 2 people of the same gender.

"Marriage" is a legal concept. It means whatever the state defines it as. In Canada, it can mean a union between two men, in Saudi Arabia, it can mean a union between a man and multiple women, and in medieval France it could've meant a union between a man and a little girl.

Yeah, like damn near the entire US and the world.

No, only the part of the world that tries to use the state to force their superstitions on us.

[CharlesBHoff]

The Judcial system has spoken an we all should respect they
legal wisdom and not illegality undo it. First it only than handful of people of the far right Christian Movenment who are trying to impose they value on all of us. First they claim they represent 50 million or 100 million people they only represent themself. The Roman Church belive that Homosexual should not be mistreated or unjustly discriminate
against.

First it two same sex people get marrage does it really harm you in any real way. To me it doesnot harm me. Does it destory socialy in any real way. It doesnot in fact it make homosexual apart of socialy an not outside of it. Will it bring about the end of the entire Universe which exist for 15 billion years. I donot think so, the Universe will end when it end on it own shedule no matter what man does or doesnot do.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Once again, I think you are wrong. One, the commerce clause ONLY refers to commerce, not relations between the states. You cannot use the commerce clause for marriage.

Why the hell not? It's already been used in race discrimination cases. It's not like it's that much of a stretch.

[KrazyHorse]

I don't understand the latest argument here. If marriage is a religious term then why does the State involve itself in it at all? If one religion defines marriage as possibly being between a man and a woman then why should the State stop them from calling it that.

If the State is in the marriage business then it cannot base its definition of marriage on religious grounds, or else the Church has taken over the State.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Now Bill O'Reilly is trying to bypass the church and state issue by calling Jesus a "philosopher" and the Christian religion, "philosophy".

Technically he ain't wrong. All religion is philosophy.

Nope. Parts of religion are mysticism.

[Berzerker]

Mindseye -

Surely you are not claiming that the meaning of words does not change? If so, you are wonderful, fantastic, and marvelous.

"Marriage" has not changed to include homosexuals, but thx, yes I am.

The practices of marriage haven't changed? Historically marriage has been practiced in a wide variety of ways. Besides polyandry and polygamy, marriage could be between a man and his 14-year old cousin. It was more often about property or inter-family ties than about romance or love. It could be arranged by parents while the couple were still children. It could involve a husband seeing his wife for the first time at their wedding. It could be between two males (early Christian church, and southeastern China). In fact, marriage as you refer to it is a relatively recent phenomena.

As I refer to it? I've referred to polygamy and that isn't recent. Monogamy isn't recent either. All these practices still exist, so what's your point? If anything, marriage in the US has been restricted from it's variety abroad to a limited monagamy, so do homosexuals support restoring this variety, including polygamy, before changing the word to include same sex unions? Nope. The homosexuals I've seen on TV have taken offense when opponents mention that polygamy would have to be allowed if same sex unions are allowed, so why wouldn't homosexuals support re-legalising polygamy? I find that quite telling, homosexuals want "marriage" to include them but not polygamy which is a valid form of marriage... Homosexuals would at least appear consistent if they supported polygamists when people like Rick Santorum pointed out that we'd have to allow polygamy under the rationale offered by homosexuals...

I wonder how you feel about 20th century changes to divorce laws. Was that an equally objectional departure from origins and practices?

Nope, and I'm indifferent to any alleged changes. Divorce, no matter what the practice and when, was and is the negation of a marriage contract.

Ramo -

"Marriage" is a legal concept. It means whatever the state defines it as. In Canada, it can mean a union between two men, in Saudi Arabia, it can mean a union between a man and multiple women, and in medieval France it could've meant a union between a man and a little girl.

Marriage has become a legal concept, but I don't buy into the notion that power hungry politicians can change the definitions of words any more than special interest groups have that authority. But here in the US, marriage excludes homosexual unions, so where does that leave your argument? You just said the state defines the term...

No, only the part of the world that tries to use the state to force their superstitions on us.

That would be most of the world.