Replies

No laughter here, friend. I have consistently brought up the 'full faith & credit' issue here on FR to those who try to be intellectually pure and make it a 'states rights' issue, but end up making stupid mistakes because they have no background in law, or are unwilling or unable to see the big picture.

Quite simply, as I have said, when a couple gets married in one state, and if they go to another state, they remain married - no legal magic is at work that 'unmarries' them at the border, and 'marries' them again when they leave the jurisdiction.

It will be clamped down - the side fighting for same sex marriage is overplaying its hand. I saw a clip of the SF mayor on tv today, and he was so arrogant and obnoxious, this can't be playing very well outside of freakshows like SF, LA, New York, and other urban areas that have lost their way. A federal constitutional amendment may have to ultimately settle this - and that's entirely legit: the full faith and credit clause of the US Constitution makes this a federal matter.

Quite simply, as I have said, when a couple gets married in one state, and if they go to another state, they remain married - no legal magic is at work that 'unmarries' them at the border, and 'marries' them again when they leave the jurisdiction

I might agree with you but in this case the couple was married illegally in one state. There is nothing to be magically undone, because there was nothing done in the first place. An illegal contract is void on it's face,no contract exists.

..the side fighting for same sex marriage is overplaying its hand.

And how. McAwful and the Powers That Be over at the DNC have got to be losing sleep and weight over this while Karl Rove and the RNC are doing a jig. The DNC thought they had their extremists stuffed back in the can when they torpedoed Dean, but come to find out it's like packing 10 pounds of s**t in a 5 pound bag--you push on one end and just end up busting a seam somewhere else. Add to it the announcement today that Nader's running again and it's time to send cases of Pepto-Bismol and Jack Daniels over to the DNC HQ.

I was watching Hannity & Colmes tonite. The question of gay marriage came up to the dem guest (Deconcini?). He said it was a non-issue. HAHAHAHAHA! He wishes it was a non-issue!

So, if a homosexual couple of divergent ages have the older one retire as a high wage earner and the younger one as a lower wage earner ("preformance" artist, say), will US Social Security take a bigger hit from these marriages?

Quite simply, as I have said, when a couple gets married in one state, and if they go to another state, they remain married...

How does the Defense of Marriage Act fit into this? Would it be declared unconstitutional?

January 16, 1997 - President Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act. This Act is important because it will allow a state to choose not to recognize a same-sex "marriage" performed in another state.