Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

New York approves Same *** Marriage.Follow

#27 Jun 25 2011 at 1:48 PM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
******
20,020 posts
As much as I would love federal mandates for same-*** marriage, I absolutely would not want the federal gov't to decide, right now, if they should or should not be allowed. That would SUCK.

I do, however, agree with Ugly. The federal gov't should demand a that all states recognize marriages from other states, as long as said people are not citizens. So, if I was in a *** marriage and went on a vacation to TN, my federal protections should remain (ability to visit my loved one in the hospital, for instance). But if I wanted to become a TN citizen, they shouldn't be required to.

Of course, I doubt we'd ever see this. And, naturally, I'd prefer a federal bill in favor of SSM.

[EDIT]

Wait, really? There is a federal protection for hetero marriage?

F*ck you DOMA. >:(

Edited, Jun 25th 2011 3:50pm by idiggory
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#28 Jun 25 2011 at 2:17 PM Rating: Good
******
30,646 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Quote:
I'm not 100% sure I understand what you mean about just visiting vs. taking up permanent residence. It seems to me that each state should recognize another state's legal marriages, no matter the reason that the couple is in that state.
I disagree. If I'm *** and living in TN, I can go to another state and get married to my girlyman, come home and now TN has to recognize my marriage. So, what if I want to marry someone 15 and that's legal in one state. Should we make all other states recognize my @#%^ habits?


Ah, I see what you mean. Ok, I don't disagree with you completely, then. I thought you meant --

No, wait. What I thought you meant actually doesn't make any sense, so never mind...
#29 Jun 25 2011 at 2:54 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
When is it ok for the federal government to do that, and when isn't it? I think it's better for each state to decide it, and once there's a majority of states already allowing something, then bring it up federally. One case to rule them all though is kinda of dangerous.


Personally, I think it should be the same across the board, and the states shouldn't be allowed to discriminate that way. When you've got each state deciding, then you've got marriages that are valid in some places and not in others. It's great that these guys can get married in NY, but if they come to Tennessee, they're just another bunch of homos who have no rights and their marriage is invalid. That's @#%^ed up.


This..
#30 Jun 25 2011 at 2:57 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,268 posts
The federal government needs to just legalise it, instead of each individual state having to do it.
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#31 Jun 25 2011 at 3:02 PM Rating: Excellent
Repressed Memories
******
20,917 posts
Nilatai wrote:
The federal government needs to just legalise it, instead of each individual state having to do it.

Ultimately this will happen. The fight for *** marriage isn't over whether it will happen, it's about when.
#32 Jun 25 2011 at 3:08 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,268 posts
Allegory wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
The federal government needs to just legalise it, instead of each individual state having to do it.

Ultimately this will happen. The fight for *** marriage isn't over whether it will happen, it's about when.

Of course, there's no way for them to justify putting it off much longer, I don't think. Not that there was any valid justification in the first place...
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#33 Jun 25 2011 at 3:53 PM Rating: Excellent
Repressed Memories
******
20,917 posts
It's not about justification, it's about marketing. Slavery was wrong in the 1700s, people just weren't sold on the idea yet.
#34 Jun 27 2011 at 11:48 AM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,010 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
I'm not 100% sure I understand what you mean about just visiting vs. taking up permanent residence. It seems to me that each state should recognize another state's legal marriages, no matter the reason that the couple is in that state.
I disagree. If I'm *** and living in TN, I can go to another state and get married to my girlyman, come home and now TN has to recognize my marriage. So, what if I want to marry someone 15 and that's legal in one state. Should we make all other states recognize my @#%^ habits?

But that IS how it works with other marriages. If I want to marry my first cousin, I can go to one of the states that allows it (such as Tennessee as it turns out), get married, and then move back home and our marriage will be recognized as valid. In South Carolina, females can marry at age 14 with parental consent. That marriage is legally valid in all 50 states.


That's not technically true

Quote:
The fly in the ointment was that nobody bothered to check
whether the Full Faith and Credit Clause had actually ever been read to require one state to recognize another state's marriages. It hasn't. Longstanding precedent from around the country holds that a state need not recognize a marriage entered into in another state with different marriage laws if those laws are contrary to strongly held local public policy. The "public policy doctrine," almost as old as this country's legal system, has been applied to foreign marriages between first cousins, persons too recently divorced, persons of different races, and persons under the age of consent. The granting of a marriage license has always been treated differently than a court award, which is indeed entitled to full interstate recognition. Court judgments are entitled to full faith and credit but historically very little interstate recognition has been given to licenses.



The full faith and credit clause primarily deals with court rulings, not licenses. So if I sue you, I can collect even if you move to another state. If I'm awarded custody of our children, I can get them back even if you are in another state. If you owe me money, etc... Some leeway is given, but when you move to another state, you are expected to obtain a drivers license issued from that state in a reasonable period of time (and register your car locally).

It's completely false to argue that the clause mandates that every single state status or condition must be recognized everywhere else. Try cashing in food stamps from one state in another sometime and see how that works. Or use your library card in another county sometime. Shockingly, every single document, status, license, etc does *not* translate across various legal boundaries and have never done so.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#35 Jun 27 2011 at 11:50 AM Rating: Good
******
49,893 posts
Allegory wrote:
It's not about justification, it's about marketing. Slavery was wrong in the 1700s, people just weren't sold on the idea yet.
It got **** done.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#36 Jun 27 2011 at 11:53 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,381 posts
gbaji wrote:
It's completely false to argue that the clause mandates that every single state status or condition must be recognized everywhere else. Try cashing in food stamps from one state in another sometime and see how that works. Or use your library card in another county sometime. Shockingly, every single document, status, license, etc does *not* translate across various legal boundaries and have never done so.
So someone getting married in Alaska, has to get a new marriage license when they move to Michigan?
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#37 Jun 27 2011 at 11:54 AM Rating: Good
******
30,646 posts
gbaji wrote:
That's not technically true

Quote:
The fly in the ointment was that nobody bothered to check
whether the Full Faith and Credit Clause had actually ever been read to require one state to recognize another state's marriages. It hasn't. Longstanding precedent from around the country holds that a state need not recognize a marriage entered into in another state with different marriage laws if those laws are contrary to strongly held local public policy. The "public policy doctrine," almost as old as this country's legal system, has been applied to foreign marriages between first cousins, persons too recently divorced, persons of different races, and persons under the age of consent. The granting of a marriage license has always been treated differently than a court award, which is indeed entitled to full interstate recognition. Court judgments are entitled to full faith and credit but historically very little interstate recognition has been given to licenses.



The full faith and credit clause primarily deals with court rulings, not licenses. So if I sue you, I can collect even if you move to another state. If I'm awarded custody of our children, I can get them back even if you are in another state. If you owe me money, etc... Some leeway is given, but when you move to another state, you are expected to obtain a drivers license issued from that state in a reasonable period of time (and register your car locally).

It's completely false to argue that the clause mandates that every single state status or condition must be recognized everywhere else. Try cashing in food stamps from one state in another sometime and see how that works. Or use your library card in another county sometime. Shockingly, every single document, status, license, etc does *not* translate across various legal boundaries and have never done so.


So what you're saying is, if I move to another state with my husband, we have to get married there or they won't recognize it...? And someone can marry someone in Idaho even if they're married to someone else in Wisconsin because Idaho doesn't recognize their WI marriage...? Smiley: dubious

I'll have to tell my mother that she wasted money getting a divorce in Tennessee from the man she married in Michigan. Apparently all she had to do was leave the state.
#38 Jun 27 2011 at 11:59 AM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,010 posts
Uglysasquatch, Mercenary Major wrote:
gbaji wrote:
It's completely false to argue that the clause mandates that every single state status or condition must be recognized everywhere else. Try cashing in food stamps from one state in another sometime and see how that works. Or use your library card in another county sometime. Shockingly, every single document, status, license, etc does *not* translate across various legal boundaries and have never done so.
So someone getting married in Alaska, has to get a new marriage license when they move to Michigan?


If their marriage violates the marriage laws of Michigan, then it's not valid. So if it's legal to marry your first cousin in Alaska, and you move to Michigan where it's not, guess what? You aren't legally married in Michigan. This is nothing new.

More correctly: The state of Michigan will not recognize your marriage. Which isn't the same thing. You're still "married", your marriage just isn't going to qualify you for anything in the State of Michigan. Nothing is taken away from you though. You just aren't given anything.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#39 Jun 27 2011 at 12:02 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,010 posts
And it's not me saying it. Read the article I linked. That's how our legal system works. It's how it's always worked.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#40 Jun 27 2011 at 12:03 PM Rating: Good
******
30,646 posts
gbaji wrote:
Nothing is taken away from you though.


Except your marriage, of course. And any protections that affords (like not being forced to testify against one another).




Edited, Jun 27th 2011 1:04pm by Belkira
#41 Jun 27 2011 at 12:07 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
That's not technically true

The full faith and credit clause primarily deals with court rulings, not licenses.

That's not "technically true" either, as the author of your column admits in other interviews:
Washington Post wrote:
Washington, D.C.: Does the "full faith and credit" clause of the Constitution really apply to a marriage in Massachusetts being recognized in Arizona, for example?

Lea Brilmayer: Well, the clause does apply because the wording is "public acts, records, and judicial proceedings" of another state.

However, as my article points out, that is not the same thing as saying automatic, one hundred percent recognition. Licenses, legislation, contracts, and other legal relationships have never been given as much credit as the judicial decisions of other states.

So it's still an untested legal question. DOMA was enacted partially to try to avoid a court case where it was given strict scrutiny and potentially found that "the clause does apply" to a full extent.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#42 Jun 27 2011 at 12:12 PM Rating: Good
******
30,646 posts
Actually, after responding to gbaji, I googled a little and read where other states had to recognize interracial marraiges not because of full faith & credit, but because of the Equal Protections Act. So maybe he has something there after all.

But someone must've been worried that it wouldn't be enough, or DOMA wouldn't exist...

Edit: Dammit, I'm slow...

Edited, Jun 27th 2011 1:12pm by Belkira
#43 Jun 27 2011 at 12:17 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
She hedges her bets as well in another column:
Quote:
But for some opponents of same-*** marriage, even the federal and state DOMAs are not reassurance enough. Some of these people worry that the federal law may someday be invalidated as inconsistent with the full faith and credit clause. That's why they seek an amendment to the U.S. Constitution. But the law is probably not unconstitutional. (Granted, that is not a very high recommendation.) Even if constitutional, it is a silly law, motivated by nothing but political grandstanding.

She has an opinion on it, and she's certainly qualified to have one, but her opinion is hardly the final word.

Belkira wrote:
Actually, after responding to gbaji, I googled a little and read where other states had to recognize interracial marraiges not because of full faith & credit, but because of the Equal Protections Act.

Equal Protection is another area DOMA is being attacked from, as well as the Tenth Amendment, from which states have the authority to determine who is married (in regards to receiving federal benefits).
Some law blog regarding the Mass. DOMA decision wrote:
The Judge then merged the Tenth Amendment and Spending Clause challenges - - - "two sides of the same coin" - - - although specifically discussing and applying the classic spending clause case of South Dakota v. Dole. The Judge found that DOMA "plainly intrudes on a core area of state sovereignty—the ability to define the marital status of its citizens," and applied First Circuit precedent regarding the test for a Tenth Amendment analysis
[...]
Judge Tauro outlined the plaintiffs arguments that the classification should merit strict scrutiny under equal protection clause doctrine, but held that the court “need not address these arguments, however, because DOMA fails to pass constitutional muster even under the highly deferential rational basis test,” because “there exists no fairly conceivable set of facts that could ground a rational relationship” between DOMA and a legitimate government objective, and that therefore DOMA violates the core constitutional principles of equal protection.


Edit: I will happily admit though that I overstated the current effect of the Full Faith & Credit Clause in regards to marriage.

Edited, Jun 27th 2011 1:56pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#44 Jun 27 2011 at 12:58 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,010 posts
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Nothing is taken away from you though.


Except your marriage, of course. And any protections that affords (like not being forced to testify against one another).


Marriage is not the same as state recognition of marriage. Surely you don't assume that a relationship isn't "real" unless the government comes along and puts a stamp on a piece of paper, do you?


The 5th amendment thing is the only thing I'm aware of that is an actual right which hinges on marriage. Um... I'm also reasonably certain that since this is a judicial issue, that 99.99999999% of judges will apply the same rules to domestic partnerships as they would to a licensed marriage. Common law marriages have existed longer than state issued marriage licenses (and were much more common until just the last century or so), yet somehow the courts managed to deal with this anyway.


Maybe if some people weren't so willing to let the state tell them how to live their lives, this wouldn't be an issue?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#45 Jun 27 2011 at 1:01 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,010 posts
The more interesting aspect of this IMO is how unequally "equal protection" is applied.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#46 Jun 27 2011 at 1:02 PM Rating: Good
******
30,646 posts
gbaji wrote:
Maybe if some people weren't so willing to let the state tell them how to live their lives, this wouldn't be an issue?


I don't see the state telling them anything. I see the people telling the state how they want things run, however.
#47 Jun 27 2011 at 1:03 PM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
12,049 posts
gbaji wrote:
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Nothing is taken away from you though.


Except your marriage, of course. And any protections that affords (like not being forced to testify against one another).


Marriage is not the same as state recognition of marriage. Surely you don't assume that a relationship isn't "real" unless the government comes along and puts a stamp on a piece of paper, do you?
Smiley: oyvey

And we come again to the issue where gbaji doesn't feel there's any need for governments to endorse *** marriage ("they're just benefits, guys!"). Cue the 20+ page thread.
____________________________
Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#48 Jun 27 2011 at 1:06 PM Rating: Excellent
******
49,893 posts
ITS THE ONLY ARGUMENT I NEED SHAWN.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#49 Jun 27 2011 at 1:08 PM Rating: Excellent
Muggle@#%^er
******
20,020 posts
I went to rate Locke up. First my pointer was in the top-right corner, and I thought "oh right," then I found the place the buttons were supposed to be and was like "oh... right."
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#50 Jun 27 2011 at 1:08 PM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
******
20,020 posts
Quote:
ITS THE ONLY ARGUMENT I NEED SHAWN.


Real lol.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#51gbaji, Posted: Jun 27 2011 at 1:10 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Really? The state says "In order to be married, you have to do X, Y, and Z, and comply with these set of contractual agreements, and jump through these hoops", and you don't see that as the state telling people how to live their lives? You honestly don't realize that for thousands of years people got married without any state involvement at all? It's only been in the past century or so that anyone but the wealthy/nobility ever involved government in their marriages.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 53 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (53)