Question: I know this is supposed to be a red herring but why wouldn't a ruling like this open up the possibility of legalizing polygamy?
because i don't think liberals and civil rights activists could get behind something that often plays out like slavery - i.e, men dominating women. i see your point, and conceptually it seems like an analogous situation - but the fact is that you NEVER see women with multiple husbands, and the image polygamy paints is not something that the court of public opinion approves of, and by a large margin.
back to gay marriage - based on who is in there right now, i don't see the supreme court making a ruling like they did in 1967, when they banned states from having laws against interracial marriage. imo, these two situations ARE completely analogous but, again, because public opinion often plays into what politicians/judges do, there isn't enough outrage to make a republican majority supreme court take this kind of stand. congress could do it though by making a federal law, and then hopefully, by the time it got to the supreme court, obama would have appointed a majority of dem jduges.
Very interesting that a group of people who support gay marriage can get in such a heated argument over the legal, religious and moral meaning of marriage and who should have a say.
STATE RIGHTS: In matters where it is important that state laws are uniform it is appropriate for the federal government to step in. In matters where it makes no difference the federal government should keep out. Since it is important that a marriage in one state be acknowledged in all states this is a federal issue.
POLYGAMY: Polygamist sects do not allow members more than one civil marriage. All subsequent marriages are "spiritual". There is nothing illegal with this arrangement. Texas made a big mistake in taking a whole community into custody. They will not win a single polygamy case if they dare to bring any. Attorneys general in Arizona and Utah have said they will only prosecute illegal acts like child abuse and rape, not religious beliefs. In other words life style choices are already legal. It is also already legal in all 50 states for gays to marry in religious "spiritual" marriages. Bestiality is not legal because it does not involve consenting adults.
Clinton opposes same-sex marriage but favors civil unions in which gay couples receive full recognition and benefits. She says that "marriage has always been province of the states" and advocates repeal of a provision in the Defense of Marriage Act that prohibits federal recognition of same-sex marriage. In the U.S. Senate, she opposed amending the Constitution to ban gay marriage. While she has solicited and received the support of gay and lesbian groups, many gay activists were alarmed over her March 2007 comment that the morality of homosexuality was up "to others to conclude." She later released a statement saying that she does not believe homosexuality is immoral. In an April 2008 interview, Clinton said she would change federal tax policies and immigration laws to eliminate disparities affecting same-sex couples.
McCain says marriage should be between a man and a woman and should be regulated by the states. He opposed a federal constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage because "it usurps from the states a fundamental authority they have always possessed." McCain endorsed a 2006 Arizona ballot initiative to limit marriage to be between a man and a woman and said, "I'm proud to have led an effort in my home state to change our state constitution and to protect the sanctity of marriage as between a man and woman." He also supported the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which banned federal recognition of gay marriage and domestic partnerships. He supports the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy and says that to "even reopen the issue" would be a "terrific mistake."
Obama says that he personally believes that "marriage is between a man and a woman" but also says that "equality is a moral imperative" for gay and lesbian Americans. He advocates the complete repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) because "federal law should not discriminate in any way against gay and lesbian couples, which is precisely what DOMA does." He supports granting civil unions for gay couples, and in 2006 he opposed a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. In March 2007, Obama initially avoided answering questions about a controversial statement by a U.S. general that "homosexual acts" are "immoral," but Obama later told CNN's Larry King, "I don't think that homosexuals are immoral any more than I think heterosexuals are immoral."
Paul writes that while he opposes states being "forced" to accept same-sex marriage, he also opposes a constitutional amendment that would prohibit gay marriage on the grounds that it would be a "major usurpation of the states' power." Paul described the current military "don't ask don't tell" policy as a "decent" one, saying that disruptive sexual behavior of any kind should be dealt with: "We don't get our rights because we're gays or women or minorities. We get our rights from our creator as individuals. So every individual should be treated the same way."
Apparently Ron Paul's support of the constitution does not extend to the separation of church and state.
Obama's view is far more liberal than I would have guessed. I figured he would be as mealy mouth as Clinton. Expect this to be a major issue in the fall. Also expect that after being able to think about it for four years most people (like 60%) who were opposed then will have gotten over the ick factor. This will help McCain and hurt Obama with fundamentalist and not many others.
I think I agree with 2 also. I think the states should offer civil unions (currently called marriage) to any 2 consenting adults. I think religious institutions should offer or deny marriage to those they choose.
I think where the word marriage exists in laws it should be replaced by civil union.
what you are describing is kind of absurd. your proposing a federal law that gives civil unions the same legal effect as marriages, but then still leaving it up to the states to decide who gets this right. as if those who are opposed to gay marriage now, won't oppose that state law.
obama and clinton are taking this "civil union" position because americans are so ignorant, that if they came out and supported gay marriage (which i 100% believe they both do), they would never become the nominee.
there needs to be a federal law guaranteeing the right for gays to marry and there is no way around it.
we left interracial marriages up to the states and it took a 1967 supreme court decision to guarantee that right to everyone. same thing with restaurants, buses, etc. with the 1964 civil rights act. the fed needs to make law. end of story.
you need to get familiar with the current supreme court. on the other hand, come january, there will be a dem prez and a dem congress with a large majority.
what you are describing is kind of absurd. your proposing a federal law that gives civil unions the same legal effect as marriages, but then still leaving it up to the states to decide who gets this right. as if those who are opposed to gay marriage now, won't oppose that state law.
Sorry I was not more detailed in my analysis. I am long winded as it is.
In my scenario the federal civil union law would give the right to a civil union to every consenting adult. The states would continue to be the licensing body.
Marriage is a religious/cultural institution, and that is why I think the government should get out of it.
you need to get familiar with the current supreme court. on the other hand, come january, there will be a dem prez and a dem congress with a large majority.
I'm well aware of the current Court's composition. I'm just saying: I can't see Congress passing a federal law protecting gay marriage. In an election year?
Is you crazy?
Hence, why I think - more realistically - in the long term, it's going to be a judicial decision, not legislative one.
I mean, it's only a matter of time before a gay couple, married in CA, move to NV, and want their marriage rights intact. They'll be a law suit and it will wind its way up the ladder. Whether the SC rules in favor of it is another story entirely, but as noted, it's no less plausible than Congress acting on it.
you need to get familiar with the current supreme court. on the other hand, come january, there will be a dem prez and a dem congress with a large majority.
Unfortunately almost all those dems are opposed to gay marriage.
I heard weapons inspector David Kay saying that he predicted and still says the Iraq war will be a 16 year war. Why? All those people who voted for the war can not back down now. It will take 16 years replace enough of them to get out.
Same goes for those people who voted for defense of marriage. 12 more years.
Hence, why I think - more realistically - in the long term, it's going to be a judicial decision, not legislative one.
I mean, it's only a matter of time before a gay couple, married in CA, move to NV, and want their marriage rights intact. They'll be a law suit and it will wind its way up the ladder. Whether the SC rules in favor of it is another story entirely, but as noted, it's no less plausible than Congress acting on it.
well, there is already the Defense of Marriage Act (not vetoed by Clinton!) which says that a state does not have to recognize a gay marriage from another state...it also defines marriage as "between a man and a woman".
anyway, i agree that this act will be challenged, the problem is that everyone already knows its unconstitutional due to the full faith and credit clause of the US constitution. so the question is - now that Massachusetts has legalized gay marriage, as has California - will the current Supreme Court even take the case Odub described knowing that they are going to have a hard time defending DOMA, which was f*cked from teh start.
the fact that every state doesn't allow gay marriage is pretty despicable. i seriously defy anyone to make a reasonable case against a federal law establishing the right for gays to wed.
I don't think "marriage" should be a concept that the government recognizes at all.
False. Marriage is a valuable institution that establishes several important rights, including but not limited to:
-Tax rights -Inheritance Rights -Insurance status -Immigration/custody rights -Unemployment benefits if you move to where your spouse???s new job is -spousal exception to giving testimony -right to bring wrongful death suits against others when spouse is wrongfully killed -next-of-kin priveliges in hospital visits -decisions about burial/last rites -etc.
Someone has to make decisions regarding, eg, how a dead person's body will be dealt with, and this is a matter of deep personal significance to many people. The power to make these decisions should be put in the right hands, and the government should ensure that the right people have the power to make that decision. Could you imagine not being entitled to determine how the body of your life partner of would be treated after they stopped living? Fucking sucks, I'm sure.
Everything you just listed can be accomplished through contract-based civil unions.
If you want to be "married" on top of that in the eyes of your faith community, that's fine, but it shouldn't have any legal significance whatsoever.
Comments
because i don't think liberals and civil rights activists could get behind something that often plays out like slavery - i.e, men dominating women. i see your point, and conceptually it seems like an analogous situation - but the fact is that you NEVER see women with multiple husbands, and the image polygamy paints is not something that the court of public opinion approves of, and by a large margin.
back to gay marriage - based on who is in there right now, i don't see the supreme court making a ruling like they did in 1967, when they banned states from having laws against interracial marriage. imo, these two situations ARE completely analogous but, again, because public opinion often plays into what politicians/judges do, there isn't enough outrage to make a republican majority supreme court take this kind of stand. congress could do it though by making a federal law, and then hopefully, by the time it got to the supreme court, obama would have appointed a majority of dem jduges.
STATE RIGHTS: In matters where it is important that state laws are uniform it is appropriate for the federal government to step in. In matters where it makes no difference the federal government should keep out. Since it is important that a marriage in one state be acknowledged in all states this is a federal issue.
POLYGAMY: Polygamist sects do not allow members more than one civil marriage. All subsequent marriages are "spiritual". There is nothing illegal with this arrangement. Texas made a big mistake in taking a whole community into custody. They will not win a single polygamy case if they dare to bring any. Attorneys general in Arizona and Utah have said they will only prosecute illegal acts like child abuse and rape, not religious beliefs. In other words life style choices are already legal. It is also already legal in all 50 states for gays to marry in religious "spiritual" marriages. Bestiality is not legal because it does not involve consenting adults.
Clinton opposes same-sex marriage but favors civil unions in which gay couples receive full recognition and benefits. She says that "marriage has always been province of the states" and advocates repeal of a provision in the Defense of Marriage Act that prohibits federal recognition of same-sex marriage. In the U.S. Senate, she opposed amending the Constitution to ban gay marriage. While she has solicited and received the support of gay and lesbian groups, many gay activists were alarmed over her March 2007 comment that the morality of homosexuality was up "to others to conclude." She later released a statement saying that she does not believe homosexuality is immoral. In an April 2008 interview, Clinton said she would change federal tax policies and immigration laws to eliminate disparities affecting same-sex couples.
McCain says marriage should be between a man and a woman and should be regulated by the states. He opposed a federal constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage because "it usurps from the states a fundamental authority they have always possessed." McCain endorsed a 2006 Arizona ballot initiative to limit marriage to be between a man and a woman and said, "I'm proud to have led an effort in my home state to change our state constitution and to protect the sanctity of marriage as between a man and woman." He also supported the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which banned federal recognition of gay marriage and domestic partnerships. He supports the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy and says that to "even reopen the issue" would be a "terrific mistake."
Obama says that he personally believes that "marriage is between a man and a woman" but also says that "equality is a moral imperative" for gay and lesbian Americans. He advocates the complete repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) because "federal law should not discriminate in any way against gay and lesbian couples, which is precisely what DOMA does." He supports granting civil unions for gay couples, and in 2006 he opposed a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. In March 2007, Obama initially avoided answering questions about a controversial statement by a U.S. general that "homosexual acts" are "immoral," but Obama later told CNN's Larry King, "I don't think that homosexuals are immoral any more than I think heterosexuals are immoral."
Paul writes that while he opposes states being "forced" to accept same-sex marriage, he also opposes a constitutional amendment that would prohibit gay marriage on the grounds that it would be a "major usurpation of the states' power." Paul described the current military "don't ask don't tell" policy as a "decent" one, saying that disruptive sexual behavior of any kind should be dealt with: "We don't get our rights because we're gays or women or minorities. We get our rights from our creator as individuals. So every individual should be treated the same way."
Apparently Ron Paul's support of the constitution does not extend to the separation of church and state.
Obama's view is far more liberal than I would have guessed. I figured he would be as mealy mouth as Clinton. Expect this to be a major issue in the fall. Also expect that after being able to think about it for four years most people (like 60%) who were opposed then will have gotten over the ick factor. This will help McCain and hurt Obama with fundamentalist and not many others.
I think where the word marriage exists in laws it should be replaced by civil union.
obama and clinton are taking this "civil union" position because americans are so ignorant, that if they came out and supported gay marriage (which i 100% believe they both do), they would never become the nominee.
there needs to be a federal law guaranteeing the right for gays to marry and there is no way around it.
we left interracial marriages up to the states and it took a 1967 supreme court decision to guarantee that right to everyone. same thing with restaurants, buses, etc. with the 1964 civil rights act. the fed needs to make law. end of story.
What makes you think such a federal law would be remotely feasible to pass in this current political climate?
I think ultimately (read: realistically) this will come down to the Supreme Court on some Roe vs. Wade tip rather than the next Civil Rights Act.
Sorry I was not more detailed in my analysis. I am long winded as it is.
In my scenario the federal civil union law would give the right to a civil union to every consenting adult. The states would continue to be the licensing body.
Marriage is a religious/cultural institution, and that is why I think the government should get out of it.
I'm well aware of the current Court's composition. I'm just saying: I can't see Congress passing a federal law protecting gay marriage. In an election year?
Is you crazy?
Hence, why I think - more realistically - in the long term, it's going to be a judicial decision, not legislative one.
I mean, it's only a matter of time before a gay couple, married in CA, move to NV, and want their marriage rights intact. They'll be a law suit and it will wind its way up the ladder. Whether the SC rules in favor of it is another story entirely, but as noted, it's no less plausible than Congress acting on it.
Unfortunately almost all those dems are opposed to gay marriage.
I heard weapons inspector David Kay saying that he predicted and still says the Iraq war will be a 16 year war. Why? All those people who voted for the war can not back down now. It will take 16 years replace enough of them to get out.
Same goes for those people who voted for defense of marriage. 12 more years.
well, there is already the Defense of Marriage Act (not vetoed by Clinton!) which says that a state does not have to recognize a gay marriage from another state...it also defines marriage as "between a man and a woman".
anyway, i agree that this act will be challenged, the problem is that everyone already knows its unconstitutional due to the full faith and credit clause of the US constitution. so the question is - now that Massachusetts has legalized gay marriage, as has California - will the current Supreme Court even take the case Odub described knowing that they are going to have a hard time defending DOMA, which was f*cked from teh start.
Everything you just listed can be accomplished through contract-based civil unions.
If you want to be "married" on top of that in the eyes of your faith community, that's fine, but it shouldn't have any legal significance whatsoever.
Earlier this week the Vatican proclaimed that it was OK to believe in UFO's and Space Aliens.
No word yet on where they stand on humans marrying space aliens.