Is this heaven? No, it's Iowa!

[MrFun]

I talked with one of my sisters on the phone tonight. Turned out she was worried that this ruling would force all churches to marry gay and lesbian couples who approach them for a wedding ceremony. She's a conservative Catholic.

I educated her on this bit, saying that churches will remain free to choose whether or not they want to marry gay and lesbian couples. She sounded like she may rethink the issue now after our conversation.

[TCO]

stupid ***** **** split tail

[MrFun]

Sober up first, and THEN post something that makes sense, TCO.

[chequita guevara]

I'd like to know what Che thinks about the article on the interview with Iowa Senator McCoy. Because Che said that Iowa may have a similar backlash as in California.

That is what I thought too, until someone sent me that article.

I think it's irrelevant. Hawaii and California both have reputations as liberal, even progressive, states. Both passed anti gay amendments. I think he's engaging in wishful thinking. I hope I'm wrong, but rural states aren't known for their tolerance.

[chequita guevara]

thanks to DOMA

DOMA is unconstitutional.

[Imran Siddiqui]

thanks to DOMA

Wrong.

After years of trying to educate you on this... thanks to public policy exception of the Full, Faith, and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution.

[chequita guevara]

Scalia disagrees with you.

[Berzerker]

I don't see why employers should be required to pay domestic partner benefits. If they want to, great, but it shouldn't be required. If an employer wants to give gay people benefits, then they should be able to go right ahead and do so.

Bingo, follow the money

[DinoDoc]

Scalia disagrees with you.

In 1939, the Court in Pacific Employers Insurance v. Industrial Accident wrote:

[T]here are some limitations upon the extent to which a state may be required by the full faith and credit clause to enforce even the judgment of another state in contravention of its own statutes or policy. See Wisconsin v. Pelican Insurance Co., 127 U.S. 265; Huntington v. Attrill, 146 U.S. 657; Finney v. Guy, 189 U.S. 335; see also Clarke v. Clarke, 178 U.S. 186; Olmsted v. Olmsted, 216 U.S. 386; Hood v. McGehee, 237 U.S. 611; cf. Gasquet v. Fenner, 247 U.S. 16. And in the case of statutes...the full faith and credit clause does not require one state to substitute for its own statute, applicable to persons and events within it, the conflicting statute of another state, even though that statute is of controlling force in the courts of the state of its enactment with respect to the same persons and events

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_Faith_and_Credit_Clause

[chequita guevara]

When interracial marriage was illegal in the South, Southern states were still required to recognize such marriages made elsewhere.

[SlowwHand]

I think polygamy should be allowed as well. If two guys can be a family, so can man and harem.

Are you insane? You're going to sit there and tell me that one woman isn't enough of a ball-breaker for you? No, you want a ****ing harem of them breaking your balls? You're one sick sonofa*****.

[TCO]

When interracial marriage was illegal in the South, Southern states were still required to recognize such marriages made elsewhere.

"...never go back"

[MrFun]

DOMA is unconstitutional.

I know

[MrFun]

I think it's irrelevant. Hawaii and California both have reputations as liberal, even progressive, states. Both passed anti gay amendments. I think he's engaging in wishful thinking. I hope I'm wrong, but rural states aren't known for their tolerance.

It doesn't matter whether Iowa is a moderate, liberal, or conservative state. It does not change the fact that its amendment process works differently from that of California and some other states.

[MrFun]

Wrong.

After years of trying to educate you on this... thanks to public policy exception of the Full, Faith, and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution.

Public policy exception?