Posted on 07/29/2013 7:51:24 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
While I agree that FF&CC obligates the states have to legally recognize gay marriage from another state, so what? It remains that the states have never amended the Constitution to protect so-called gay rights.
For example, I have heard that Texas prohibits married gay couples from getting divorced. So if a gay married couple moves to Texas and then decides to divorce, then surprise! They cannot get divorced in Texas.
I think that this Texas law, if it exists, was intended to discourage gay married couples from incuding Texas in their plans.
If you can’t control half of one political party, you can’t control half of the country.
A new party would start at zero, and you would have to gain 50% to control half the country.
A conservative takeover of the R party would need only 25%.
I don’t get your point.
The bottom line is that gay marriage is legal in America now, there remains some legal cases and lawsuits to mop up the details about it being recognized in all 50 states, but that won’t take long, this states argument was always a pro-gay marriage argument, as I have been pointing out for quite some time.
GIs, federal employees, and any and all Americans will be able to live in any state and have their legal marriage recognized.
Just because activist justices sidestepped a decision on Prop 8 doesn't make gay marriage a constitutionally protected right. Given that the states have always had the 10th Amendment-protected power to regulate marriage, there is nothing surprising that states controlled by Christian-hating socialists finally used their 10A powers to attack traditional one man, one woman marriage.
But it remains that states can still make laws to discriminate against constitutionally unprotected gay rights.
Do you in your heart, honestly believe that there will be states that do not recognize families of legally married Marines and FBI stationed there, or of retirees and families that move in from other states?
I’m looking for honesty from you.
We need to get gay marriage off the table as an issue. The NAMBLA people have been patiently waiting to move their agenda as the next civil right. Animals and polygamists, like Muslims can’t wait forever, either.
NAMBLA yet another libertarian battle against Christianity and conservatism.
No surprise with the liberals and nonregligious, but what a sad display for Catholicism. I wonder how many of these people actually go to Church on a consistent basis or are labeling themselves as such because that’s what they were baptized as a kid.
If the following information from Wikipedia about DOMA is correct, Section 2 of DOMA which the Supreme Court didn't strike down, and which clarifies the FF&CC obligations of the states, should answer your question. States are evidently not expected to recognize same-sex marriages from other states, corrections welcome.
The main provisions of the act were as follows:Section 1. Short title
This Act may be cited as the "Defense of Marriage Act".
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 (ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court)
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.
I didn’t think that you would answer.
I’ve been reading some of your posting history, so much of it is about fighting your battle for homosexual marriage as you jump on thread after thread to say the same old same old and to stop discussion of resistance to it.
Do you in your heart, honestly believe that there will be states that do not recognize families of legally married Marines and FBI stationed there, or of retirees and families that move in from other states?
Hmm...I wonder why Christians were omitted from THIS list? (sarc)
I haven’t read the thread comments, yet.
Just want to say that a marriage license is a’privilage’ that is granted by each State, just like a driver’s license. Certain prerequisites must be met to get both licenses. .....It’s NOT a Federal matter; it’s a State matter under the 10th Amendment!
I’m not aware of any state that doesn’t recognize legal marriage from another state...
*********************************
Texas refused a filing for divorce by a couple of lesbians who had been ‘married’ in some Northeastern State, because under Texas law the two were not recognized as being married. Thus, there was no legal grounds for divorce.
The bottom line is that gay marriage is legal in America now,...
******************
That’s a bunch of BS! The privilage of obtaining a marriage license is governed by each State; not the Federal government.
Too bad these idiots don’t realize that marriage is not addressed in the constitution. Therefore it is up to the states.
But being called different hurts their feelings. They are just like you and me.
Except for the being queer part.
//sarcasm off.
That’s not the what it did. The Supreme Court said that at any law against gay marriage is presumptively motivated by unconstitutional bias against gays. It first applied that principle only to the case over which it had jurisdiction and said the Feds must recognize any state-legal gay marriage, but there is zero reason to believe it would not take jurisdiction over a case asking one state to recognize another’s gay marriage, and agree that it must, or another case asking to strike down state DOMAs (only standing kelt it from doing the latter in June)
The core bias finding will be the basis for lower courts doing either or both within months and for the Supreme Court coup de grace within two years.
Yes, I am well-aware that the Catholic church has been largely infiltrated by dogmatic barking-moonbat leftists.
Part of why I left, you know.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.