Massachusetts Court rules state cannot ban gay marraige

[David Floyd]

Ramo,

Perhaps marriage has BECOME a legal concept, but I think we and Berzerker can all agree that it SHOULD NOT be one, except insofar that it is a state-RECOGNIZED (not approved) contract.

[CharlesBHoff]

Alot of Muslum would like to be able to marry up to four wife at the same time and the American ban on it go against the Constitution of the United States. The member of the Church of Latter Day Saint would also like to have their right to have more than one wife at the same time also.

[Ned]

Originally posted by 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.

Imran, my reference to the commerce clause was only by analogy. I was not saying that this was a source of power for the Defense of Marriage Act.

I don't see how you can leap from what I said concerning recognition by one state of another state's acts into the conclusion that the federal government could outlaw the death penalty in a particular state using the full faith and credit clause.

You have to have two states for this to make any sense. A first state must impose an act such as a gay marriage. The question is then presented does the second state have to recognize the first state's act. The full faith and credit clause says yes, but also says that Congress has the power to regulate the effect of the first state's acts in the second state. In this case Congress has said that the second state does not have to recognize gay marriages. Therefore a gay couple traveling from the first state to the second state would not to find that their marriage is recognize in the second state.

[Ned]

Originally posted by 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.

Krazyhorse, does your argument reduce to "Anything the Christian churche's favor I oppose otherwise the "church" would be taking over the state?"

Regardless, even you must know that marriage has existed from at least of the dawn of civilization and perhaps for far longer than that. Even in ancient Greece there was a distinction between marriage between a man and a woman in a gay relationship.

[JimmyCracksCorn]

Originally posted by Ned


Krazyhorse, does your argument reduce to "Anything the Christian churche's favor I oppose otherwise the "church" would be taking over the state?"

Regardless, even you must know that marriage has existed from at least of the dawn of civilization and perhaps for far longer than that. Even in ancient Greece there was a distinction between marriage between a man and a woman in a gay relationship.

In anthropological terms, marriage (or exclusive pair bonding) is a relatively new thing and entirely a cultural innovation. It would only have come around after agrarianism took hold (ca. 10,000 years ago), which is a drop in the bucket considering we're a 200,000 year old species, with hunter-gatherer roots reaching as far back as 4 million years ago (some claim even farther). There's nothing biological about it (marriage), except for the urge for sexual interaction, which is equally present in homosexuals as well as heterosexuals.

[Ned]

JCC, are you sure? I thought there was evidence that Cro Magnon man had "families" as opposed to Neanderthals. The women of Cro Magnon stayed home and raised the kids, for example. Would this happen if a man were not helping the women because he knew they were "his" kids?

[chequita guevara]

So, how many of you anti-gay people eat shrimp? Note my sig, you god-daned shrimp eaters. You're all going to hell for your sins!

[MrFun]

I guess me and most of the other gay Apolytoners have gotten tired of this pissing contest in this thread . . . . .

[chequita guevara]

Shrimp-eater!

[CharlesBHoff]

I read somewhere India doesnot make than big deal about Homsexual relateship like we do in America. They have I believe no anti-sodney law as they religion is quite open about this. Homsexual are allow to have sex with conscent men or woman but it is illegal to have sex with children or rape than adult. Than they do enforce they laws compare to the harporard way we enforce our anti-sodney law where in New York State from the founding of the Federal Government to 1900 out of 1 million penony arrest only 27 cover the anti-sodney law than they where brough about as part of than divorved case that have than man and woman hetesexual and not homosexual.

What America need to do is rethink they old law's and learn from other culutures. I remember reading somewhere that rape and murder case against two homosexual man who rape and murder than 8 year old boy would have being fround not guielty untril two homosexual man on the jury said
what wrong with you straight people that these two man are
plainly guiely of murder and rape an we two say that they are guiely that turn the jury around. This happen in a State where homosexual are bar from jury duty .

[CharlesBHoff]

Originally posted by Ned
JCC, are you sure? I thought there was evidence that Cro Magnon man had "families" as opposed to Neanderthals. The women of Cro Magnon stayed home and raised the kids, for example. Would this happen if a man were not helping the women because he knew they were "his" kids?

They are going by so little evident to real say anything really valid. There are some evident that Neanderthal and cro magnon man intermarraige with each other. Neanderthal man wasnot really bowleg that they all suffer from arthia( painful joint sickness which make it painful to move that or use that joinst).

[Imran Siddiqui]

but also says that Congress has the power to regulate the effect of the first state's acts in the second state.

If we read every Constitutional provision as broadly as you have read this one we inevitable would find a right to human sacrifices as a part of free exercise of religion.

Congress has the power to determine the effects of the prescription of state acts basically only if it has the power to pass a law on the issue. It can't just decide it will say one state's law just simply won't be recognized by others. Like my DP analogy (which completely went over your head, it seems), under your interpretation Congress could, if it wanted, allow states to keep prisoners who have been convicted of the DP in one state, instead of expediting them to the state they were convicted in. That would be utterly silly.

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

The race discrimination cases did include some interstate commerce (ie, hotels engage in interstate commerce). And it hasn't been expanded much beyond that. Marriage has always been a state issue and isn't interstate commerce in any way, really (perhaps with the exception of Las Vegas ).

[Berzerker]

(ie, hotels engage in interstate commerce)

Umm...you mean like if I get dirt on my shoes in Kansas and drive to Nebraska and stay in a hotel and the dirt comes off in the hotel?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Forget the dirt, the mere fact that you are from Kansas and go over the border to Nebraska is interstate commerce. It is a commercial activity spaning two states.

[Ramo]

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.

They can change the definition of legal words. That's why they're legal words.

But here in the US, marriage excludes homosexual unions, so where does that leave your argument? You just said the state defines the term...

Yes, and the state can redefine it. Which it should. What's your point?

That would be most of the world.

Damn straight. Gay rights in most of the world are crap. Usually, the state can put people in prison for being gay.

Perhaps marriage has BECOME a legal concept, but I think we and Berzerker can all agree that it SHOULD NOT be one, except insofar that it is a state-RECOGNIZED (not approved) contract.

I'm not sure what you're getting at. It shouldn't be a legal concept, but it should be state-recognized?