Homosexuality & Politics in the 21st Century

[BJPalmer85]

Section 2. Powers reserved to the states
No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.

Section 3. Definition of marriage
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act#Text

That is what I read it from

Ok that is some bull **** right there!! section 3 at least

B

PS - thanks for the link

 

[WizardTrubbish]

Ok that is some bull **** right there!! section 3 at least

The Supreme Court already declared section 3 unconstitutional
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Windsor

 

[BigLutz]

The Supreme Court already declared section 3 unconstitutional
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Windsor

In which case I would say that the DOMA should stand if it merely consists of Section 2.

 

[Pesky Persian]

In which case I would say that the DOMA should stand if it merely consists of Section 2.

If opposite-sex marriages are recognized among all of the states, why should same-sex marriages be any different?

 

[BigLutz]

If opposite-sex marriages are recognized among all of the states, why should same-sex marriages be any different?

If one state bans Gay Marriage through the legal democratic process, then it should not be forced to do a end around the will of it's own voters. We may not like it but we should respect the will of the voters of that state.

 

[7 tyranitars]

The Supreme Court already declared section 3 unconstitutional
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Windsor

It never did, must have been someone who updated wikipedia thinking it got struck down today.

 

[Pesky Persian]

If one state bans Gay Marriage through the legal democratic process, then it should not be forced to do a end around the will of it's own voters. We may not like it but we should respect the will of the voters of that state.

So when did we decide, through democratic process, that straight marriage should be legal?

What makes same-sex marriage so different? Why should they lose federal benefits of marriage if they were married in a state that has legalized it and move to a state that bans it? Why should the state have the power to nullify a party's legal contract?

 

[BigLutz]

So when did we decide, through democratic process, that straight marriage should be legal?

Want me to go down the list on states that banned Gay Marriage, Banned Polygamy, Banned Beastiality, etc etc, therefore creating a timeline of when straight marriage was the only alternative?

What makes same-sex marriage so different? Why should they lose federal benefits of marriage if they were married in a state that has legalized it and move to a state that bans it? Why should the state have the power to nullify a party's legal contract?

Because that contract is not recognized in that state. If people wish to not lose their benefits then they should not move there! Again I bring up the Casino Analogy, if I get a Gambling License in Nevada, I cannot move to Texas and expect them to honor it for me.

 

[WizardTrubbish]

It never did, must have been someone who updated wikipedia thinking it got struck down today.

It was decided last December...

 

[Pesky Persian]

Want me to go down the list on states that banned Gay Marriage, Banned Polygamy, Banned Beastiality, etc etc, therefore creating a timeline of when straight marriage was the only alternative?

No, because there are legitimate reasons for banning things like polygamy (at least from a legal standpoint), bestiality, and the like. Just because opposite-sex marriage was offered as the only alternative does not mean that it was voted for as legal. No one voted for straight marriage; they just voted against everything else.

Also, what purpose does banning same-sex marriage serve? Why should it be allowed to be put to vote? Should we allow laws that serve no real purpose to be considered?

If I worked in state government and decided that I wanted to propose a bill that bans people from wearing yellow shirts and that got enough approval to be put to vote and the people of the state decided "You know what? I really don't like yellow shirts either" and voted for that bill, should that be enacted? Should pointless laws be allowed on no other basis than majority preference?

Because that contract is not recognized in that state. If people wish to not lose their benefits then they should not move there! Again I bring up the Casino Analogy, if I get a Gambling License in Nevada, I cannot move to Texas and expect them to honor it for me.

As far as I'm aware, a gambling license is not a federal contract to begin with. When opposite-sex couples move from one state to another, they do not have to obtain a new marriage license approved by the state, do they?

 

[BigLutz]

No, because there are legitimate reasons for banning things like polygamy (at least from a legal standpoint), bestiality, and the like. Just because opposite-sex marriage was offered as the only alternative does not mean that it was voted for as legal. No one voted for straight marriage; they just voted against everything else.

Also, what purpose does banning same-sex marriage serve? Why should it be allowed to be put to vote? Should we allow laws that serve no real purpose to be considered?

If I worked in state government and decided that I wanted to propose a bill that bans people from wearing yellow shirts and that got enough approval to be put to vote and the people of the state decided "You know what? I really don't like yellow shirts either" and voted for that bill, should that be enacted? Should pointless laws be allowed on no other basis than majority preference?

Sadly welcome to politics, where pointless laws exist. Also you do realize you are preaching to the choir here, I think all marriage laws should be disbanded including the ones that have "legitimate reasons" as if you look hard enough you can find legitimate reasons for everything.

As far as I'm aware, a gambling license is not a federal contract to begin with. When opposite-sex couples move from one state to another, they do not have to obtain a new marriage license approved by the state, do they?

Again this is too far outside of my expertise as to what is and is not a Federal Contract and what is and is not honored by the state. I am merely saying that if voters have said that Gay Marriage will not be recognized in that state, then the will of the voters should be acknowledged.

 

[Pesky Persian]

Sadly welcome to politics, where pointless laws exist. Also you do realize you are preaching to the choir here, I think all marriage laws should be disbanded including the ones that have "legitimate reasons" as if you look hard enough you can find legitimate reasons for everything.

Again this is too far outside of my expertise as to what is and is not a Federal Contract and what is and is not honored by the state. I am merely saying that if voters have said that Gay Marriage will not be recognized in that state, then the will of the voters should be acknowledged.

Pointless laws that oppress people for no legitimate reason should not exist. That's an utterly stupid way to run a government. Thinking all marriage laws should be disbanded and then supporting DOMA makes no sense whatsoever.

Why should same-sex couples be punished for moving to another state? Why should they lose all of the rights afforded to them by the federal government for relocating? They did not get a chance to have their voices heard. They did not get to vote.

 

[BigLutz]

Pointless laws that oppress people for no legitimate reason should not exist. That's an utterly stupid way to run a government. Thinking all marriage laws should be disbanded and then supporting DOMA makes no sense whatsoever.

I may think that, but I respect the Democratic Process and do not wish to push my ideas on to a state through dictatorial means just because I do not agree with the voters of that state.

Why should same-sex couples be punished for moving to another state? Why should they lose all of the rights afforded to them by the federal government for relocating? They did not get a chance to have their voices heard. They did not get to vote.

Then they should work to enact change in those laws, that is the democratic process afterall.

 

[Pesky Persian]

You still haven't answered my questions as to why a state should be able to strip someone of their rights.

 

[BigLutz]

You still haven't answered my questions as to why a state should be able to strip someone of their rights.

Again as I said if the state voters have decided what marriage is in that one state, then they should have the right to uphold that view until it is changed.

 

[Pesky Persian]

Again as I said if the state voters have decided what marriage is in that one state, then they should have the right to uphold that view until it is changed.

(I'm just going to throw out my original statement in this post because it's not getting through anyway.)

Edit: Actually, found this interesting page on the Cornell Law School website, which includes the following:

The Supreme Court has held that states are permitted to reasonably regulate the institution by prescribing who is allowed to marry and how the marriage can be dissolved. Entering into a marriage changes the legal status of both parties and gives both husband and wife new rights and obligations. One power that the states do not have, however, is that of prohibiting marriage in the absence of a valid reason. For example, prohibiting interracial marriage is unconstitutional because it violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.

(Emphasis added.)
So I would say that Prop 8 in California's case is in direct violation of this. Provide a valid reason for banning it and the federal government should allow it to stay.

 

[BigLutz]

(I'm just going to throw out my original statement in this post because it's not getting through anyway.)

Edit: Actually, found this interesting page on the Cornell Law School website, which includes the following:


(Emphasis added.)
So I would say that Prop 8 in California's case is in direct violation of this. Provide a valid reason for banning it and the federal government should allow it to stay.

That should be interesting to see what the Supreme Court arguments were yesterday in terms of providing a valid reason for banning it.

 

[Pesky Persian]

That should be interesting to see what the Supreme Court arguments were yesterday in terms of providing a valid reason for banning it.

I listened to the audio in its entirety and it didn't seem like any of the reasons for banning it were legitimate. It didn't sound like anyone else thought it was legitimate either so here's to hoping equal marriage rights come from this.

 

[Crudelis ventus]

Did anyone here about the marriage equality bill going through the Minnesota state senate?

 

[Byzantine]

If one state bans Gay Marriage through the legal democratic process, then it should not be forced to do a end around the will of it's own voters. We may not like it but we should respect the will of the voters of that state.

And that is where we disagree. As far as I'm concerned you don't vote on something like this, and any vote on it, regardless of the outcome, has no validity, hence we can, will, and should stomp all over state's rights if that is what it takes.