Rich in Ohio Posted December 10, 2004 Posted December 10, 2004 Anybody care to tell me what the big deal is about gay people getting married? Are homophobs afraid their baby boy will bring home a son in law? I just don't get it. If two people are in love and are of age, more power to them. 153617[/snapback] Umm please read the definition of the word marriage and it should become crystal clear to you as well. This is not a homophob issue...at least not for me. I just happen to believe that cerian words have a meaning, and certian institutions have a place in our great society. There is a place for the gays, and civil unions I think would work fine. It not any more complicated then that.
DC Tom Posted December 10, 2004 Posted December 10, 2004 Moved Ahead?????? are you kidding me. it won't be long now until candians are free to marry chickens, rats, sheep, and monkeys. Or perhaps 3 or four people...after all the definition of marriage seems to be a fluid thing as well. And when exactly was the last time the the United States of America followed in canadas footsteps?? Get real. 154382[/snapback] There's nothing quite as entertaining as watching Rich simultaneously being homophobic, zoophobic, anthrophobic, and xenophobic...
RuntheDamnBall Posted December 10, 2004 Posted December 10, 2004 There is a place for the gays, and civil unions I think would work fine. It not any more complicated then that. 154386[/snapback] Furthermore, get government out of the business of marriage, everyone already married has a civil union, and your church takes care of your marriage. If you want it. Then there is no 'separate but equal' situation to worry about. Separation of church and state is wise, folks.
Alaska Darin Posted December 10, 2004 Posted December 10, 2004 Moved Ahead?????? are you kidding me. it won't be long now until candians are free to marry chickens, rats, sheep, and monkeys. 154382[/snapback] There's a very valid concern.
UConn James Posted December 10, 2004 Posted December 10, 2004 In a battle between money versus real or pretended moral outrage, I'd bet on the money. 153327[/snapback] "A conscience which has been bought once will be bought twice." -- Norbert Wiener (As for the last name, I'm leaving it alone. Too easy. ) Why do you think Bush suddenly tweaked his stance late in the game to say that civil unions are a viable alternative? I agree, but then again, I saw the logic of it back in 1999 when it first came up. I guess it just takes longer for some people to do a day's work....
Mickey Posted December 10, 2004 Author Posted December 10, 2004 Throw me a bone here. I can't answer the legal ramifications of such, for the same reason I can't for a marriage in Vermont that's illegal in Alabama: I haven't the slightest idea what the case law is. You're the lawyer...tell us, what are the precedents concerning reciprocity in recogniation of civil law, both intra- and internationally. I'm sure there must be SOME (e.g. different states have different requirements for drivers' licenses...how is it that a 14 year old licensed in one state is still legally entitled to drive in another state where the legal limit for a license is 17? There's got to be some precedent on the subject, even if only loosely guiding.) 154082[/snapback] It is a pretty complicated issue. Most lawyers will tell you that the toughest thing to learn in law school is the "Erie Analysis" which is when there is a debate as to which law applies in a case. These "choice of laws" cases can be a real gordian knot. Conflict of laws is an unavoidable issue when you have a nation set up like ours with 50 different jurisdictions just in terms of States. As far as this particular issue is concerned, the rule was that a marriage valid in the state where it was made is valid in every other state by virtue of the Full Faith and Credit clause of the US Constitution which requires states to give "full faith and credit" to the judgments and to a certain extent the laws of their sister states. That is why a protection order against an abusive spouse doesn't become unenforceable if the abuse spouse crosses a state line. It is a vital enough principle that it is part of the Constitution. The Defense of Marriage Act ("Act") was passed by congress to deal with the problem that if any single state made gay marriages legal, other states would be bound to recognize marriages performed in that state as legal despite what its own laws say about the matter. The constitutionality of the Act hasn't been tested yet as far as I know. Those against gay marriages were freaking out that some state (at the time they were most worried about Hawaii) was going to legalize it and then Alabama, New York and everyone else would have to recognize such marriages. The Act was passed specifically to try and short circuit what had been long, long standing law on the issue. Its constitutionality hasn't been tested as far as I know. In one of his more cowardly moments, Clinton supported it as part of his rightward tilt. It was strictly a political ploy on his part. I think he justified it in his own mind by thinking the Supremes will have to strike it down anyway. Completely apart from the idea of whether gay marriage is the worst idea of the century or something else, from a legal standpoint the Defense of Marriage Act is a colossal legal trap. If that thing were ever upheld, it would undermine the Full Faith and Credit clause which has prevented the balkanization of American Jurisprudence for a couple hundred years now. As for reciprocity in general, this usaully requires an actual legislative grant. Such laws usually say something along the lines of "The State of Flux shall recognize a dog license validly issued by any other licensing agency of any other US state fully as if it were issued in New York state provided that the issuing state similarly recognizes as valid within its territory such licenses issued by New York State." Some times the trade isn't straight up. Maybe they won't make you take their bar exam if you are a lawyer but they will require payment of a fee. Those are the basics.
Mickey Posted December 10, 2004 Author Posted December 10, 2004 Moved Ahead?????? are you kidding me. it won't be long now until candians are free to marry chickens, rats, sheep, and monkeys. Or perhaps 3 or four people...after all the definition of marriage seems to be a fluid thing as well. And when exactly was the last time the the United States of America followed in canadas footsteps?? Get real. 154382[/snapback] "Ahead" doesn't mean "good idea" in this context. No gay marriages was the state of things in Canada's past, legal gay marriages are, if they ever occur a modern day and future development. As such, the metapor "move ahead" fits quite well to describe a step forward towards the future. Whether that step is one that should be taken is a debate worth having that has frankly been argued to death here. I don't think anyone has any doubt about the relevant positions of most regular posters on the board. What I wanted to focus on was the practical difficulty of handling things in a world where clearly there are going to be places where such marriages are legal. Nice to see you favor gay unions, ie, gay marriages by another name. I am sure you are aware that the Republican party opposed both gay marriages and gay unions.
CoachChuckDickerson Posted December 10, 2004 Posted December 10, 2004 Moved Ahead?????? are you kidding me. it won't be long now until candians are free to marry chickens, rats, sheep, and monkeys. Or perhaps 3 or four people...after all the definition of marriage seems to be a fluid thing as well. And when exactly was the last time the the United States of America followed in canadas footsteps?? Get real. 154382[/snapback] Comparing gay people to monkeys, sheep and rats. Umm yeah. Nice valid arguement.
Mickey Posted December 10, 2004 Author Posted December 10, 2004 Comparing gay people to monkeys, sheep and rats. Umm yeah. Nice valid arguement. 154651[/snapback] Coach, you 'aint seen nuthin yet. That was about as reasonable and inoffensive as he gets.
Gavin in Va Beach Posted December 10, 2004 Posted December 10, 2004 Gay marriage has not triumphed in Canada because Canadians are more liberal on the issue than Americans, although they are, slightly. Gay marriage has triumphed because Canadian politics is much less subject to popular control than US politics. Almost all Canadian judges above the level of police magistrate, including judges on the mis-named provincial courts, are appointed by the prime minister at his sole whim: there are no judicial hearings, no opportunities for representatives of the people to block out-in-left-field nominations. Canada’s constitution was negotiated in 1982 without any kind of reference to the public: It is now effectively unamendable. Open debate is restricted: The federal government regulates radio and television to keep unwelcome opinions off the air. American programs that take a traditionalist view of marriage – Dr. Laura Schlessinger’s for example – were forced off the airwaves by government power. Individuals who express traditionalist views on the gay marriage question can (and have been) harshly punished. (One Saskatchewan man was fined $5,000 for buying an ad in his local paper made up of verses from the bible.) Even today, it’s doubtful that same-sex marriage would pass Parliament on a free vote: But, as the Globe and Mail observes today in the story linked above, “Several cabinet ministers have voted against same-sex marriage on previous occasions in the House, but will have to change positions if they want to remain in cabinet.” As for the 'leave it to the states'/federalism argument- Here’s how “federalism” on the marriage question really “works”: Two Vermont women, Lisa and Janet, entered a civil union. One became pregnant. The relationship ended. The mother and child moved out of state to Virginia – a state that does not recognize civil unions. The non-custodial women sued for visitation rights in Virginia and lost. So she sued in Vermont and on November 20 won a custody order from a Vermont court. If the birth mother ignores the order, Vermont will hold her in contempt - and will then demand that Virginia enforce the contempt ruling. Result: Either Virginia must accept the validity of a marriage that flagrantly violates the public policy of the Commonwealth – or else it ignores a facially valid custody order and violates the public policy of the United States in favor of comity between state courts. To put it more bluntly: the “federalist” approach to marriage will destroy either federalism (as states ignore each other’s judicial orders) or else it will destroy marriage (as individuals using their freedom of movement carry same-sex marriages with them into states that do not wish to recognize them). And just as a footnote: I did a quick google search this morning and discovered that none of the self-described proponents of federalism have taken Virginia’s side in the custody matter. No surprise there: For the advocates of same-sex marriage, federalism is a tactic, not a principle. It will be discarded as soon as it ceases to serve its purposes. Canada and the Federalists
Mickey Posted December 10, 2004 Author Posted December 10, 2004 As for the 'leave it to the states'/federalism argument-Canada and the Federalists 154701[/snapback] The example he choses to illustrate his point is problematic. Jurisdiction in custody cases is always a major legal tussle whether the parents are gay or not. I am sure the one woman in that case moved to Virgina precisely because it would not recognize any custodial rights for her former partner. Its called "forum shopping". There is a law known as the Uniform Jurisdiction and Custody Act that tries to set a national standard for jurisdiction in custody cases so as to discourage parental kidnappings where one parent absconds to another state with the kid where he or she thinks they have an advantage in court. Not all states have signed on. What Virgina should do in that case is transfer it back to the original home state of the parties where all these things happened, where the relationships were formed where the kid was born and raised and all that. It is called "jurisdictional nexus". Virginia, apart from being a beneficial legal forum for one litigant, doesn't have anything to do with the people and the events involved. The Defense of Marriage Act is what makes it possible for States to ignore the orders of other states in this area. If not for it, states would have to enforce them, all states, whether they like it or not. Giving full faith and credit to the rulings of other states, even when the laws are different, has been going on for 200 years or so in this country without a problem (well, there was that civil war but other than that...). If the Act is declared unconstitutional, States would have to recognize Mass. marriages, even the gay ones. It wouldn't destroy federalism any more than having to recognize a protective order issued by a court in another state would do so.
Rich in Ohio Posted December 13, 2004 Posted December 13, 2004 "Ahead" doesn't mean "good idea" in this context. No gay marriages was the state of things in Canada's past, legal gay marriages are, if they ever occur a modern day and future development. As such, the metapor "move ahead" fits quite well to describe a step forward towards the future. Whether that step is one that should be taken is a debate worth having that has frankly been argued to death here. I don't think anyone has any doubt about the relevant positions of most regular posters on the board. What I wanted to focus on was the practical difficulty of handling things in a world where clearly there are going to be places where such marriages are legal. Nice to see you favor gay unions, ie, gay marriages by another name. I am sure you are aware that the Republican party opposed both gay marriages and gay unions. 154571[/snapback] what does that have to do with the way I feel? I do not just follow the RNC blindly.
Mickey Posted December 14, 2004 Author Posted December 14, 2004 154571[/snapback] what does that have to do with the way I feel? I do not just follow the RNC blindly. 158903[/snapback] You support the party which opposes civil unions so your support of such unions is largely academic. If you voted for Republican candidates and did nothing to prevent the party from taking that position in its platform, you have done as much to prevent such unions as those who sharply oppose them. I doubt the party would ever listen to me but they might listen to its members/supporters. What is the distinction between a "civil union" carrying all the legal rights of a marriage and a "civil marriage" carrying all the rights and the actual word "marriage" that leads you to support one and not the other? Seriously, I never understood Kerry's distinction here nor the President's, help me out.
Recommended Posts