New GOP gay-ban tactics Court powers could be taken away, says majority leader

The Hill ^ | July 15, 2004 | Jonathan E. Kaplan

[Dan from Michigan]

ROFL. I didn't even catch that part.

[John Valentine]

That's in the good ole Constitution.

Can't remember the reference, but I'll post it when I get home. It's kind of reasonable when you think abut it if we are a federal Republic, you can't have states going around trying to nullify the legislative acts of other states.

But that assumes that the states will act legally.

That's why the Constitution mandates the federal governemtn to guarantee to each state a "republican form of gevernment," i.e. non-tyrranical. I'd say that should extend to a ban on judicial tyrrany.

There is some cleaning up overdue in the federal judiciary as well as in the states. We need to get on this problem soon.

[greasepaint]

>you can't have states going around trying to nullify the legislative acts of other states<
...
Where is (forced on states) reciprocity for marriages
written in federal law?

[RonF]

Where is (forced on states) reciprocity for marriages written in federal law?

It comes from Article IV, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, a.k.a. the "Full Faith and Credit" clause:

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Say in State A, both the male and the female must be 18 years old to marry, whereas in State B, the female can be 17. A couple consisting of an 18-year old male and a 17-year old female cannot marry in State A. But if they marry, quite legally, in State B and then move to State A before the female turns 18, State A is, on the basis of the above section of the Constitution, required to recognize them as legally married.

At least, that's how it's been interpreted so far. Now, the question is whether or not the various DOMA's that have been passed by the State legislatures will prevent a same-sex couple from Massachusetts from moving to a state with a DOMA and having their Massachusetts marriage recognized. My personal guess is, no; in the absence of a Constitutional amendment, those laws won't stand.

[John Valentine]

Take a look at the United States Constitution, Article 4, Section 1:

"Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof."

I don't want to get into a general exegesis of this article, but suffice it to say that this is the Constitutional backbone of the problem, and why a same-sex couple "married" in Massachussets may be able to force the governemtn of Arkansas to recognize the marraige. As written, Arkansas must give "Full faith and credit" to the public acts and records of the state of Massachussetts.

Now, the Congress has the right to legislate the "Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof," but that does not extend to the substance of the issue, only the procedural issues of proof, i.e. does a marriage liscence need to be produced...

Now, if you are looking for explicit language dealing with recipricocity for marriages, you won't find it. The drafters were going for more general language when they put the Constitution together, but that doesn't mean that the clause as written doesn't cover marriage.

[longtermmemmory]

protecting marriage is not a base issue, it is a national issue which crosses all lines.

Protecting marriage is a unifying issue.

Promoting homsoexual marriage is a dividing issue.

Kerry is a divider by supporting homosexual marriage with his 100% HRC rating.

[ATOMIC_PUNK]

http://lomaprieta.sierraclub.org/lp0011_Gore.html


Look familiar

[Susannah]

for your info: I did a "whois" search on the site www.nambla.org at www.dnsstuff.com and came up with the following:

Domain ID:D560828-LROR
Domain Name:NAMBLA.ORG
Created On:11-Oct-1996 04:00:00 UTC
Last Updated On:18-Jul-2004 07:23:01 UTC
Expiration Date:10-Oct-2005 04:00:00 UTC
Sponsoring Registrar:R11-LROR
Status:OK
Registrant ID:tuOyMD9O3nISjuCI
Registrant Name:Floyd Conaway
Registrant Organization:NAMBLA
Registrant Street1:537 Jones St No 8418
Registrant City:San Francisco
Registrant State/Province:CA
Registrant Postal Code:94102
Registrant Country:US
Registrant Phone:+1.2128078578

[counterpunch]

Yeah. I just checked their website. They give this contact info there:

---

POSTAL SERVICE (US MAIL):
Write to us!

NAMBLA - WWW
P O Box 174 Midtown Station
New York, NY 10018


NAMBLA - WWW
537 Jones St., No. 8418
San Francisco, CA 94102



e-MAIL

Click to Send your message to: peterherman@netzero.net

TELEPHONE

We have voice-mail services in New York:

New York voice-mail: (212) 631-1194

---

The domain registration matches the SF HQ.

[little jeremiah]

Homosexual Agenda Ping - Interesting what the Congresscritters (supposedly) have said about the Senate cloture thingummybob not happening, and whether it'll turn out to be a good thing or bad thing.

Oh, and this is what one of the signers of the Constitution [I think that's who he is; this quote is from www.federalist.com] had to say about marriage:


"The most important consequence of marriage is, that the husband
and the wife become in law only one person.... Upon this principle
of union, almost all the other legal consequences of marriage
depend. This principle, sublime and refined, deserves to be
viewed and examined on every side." --James Wilson

Let me know if anyone wants on/off this pinglist. Warning: it be busy. Usually.

[counterpunch]

ummm.
Perhaps you should see this then:
Warning: NAMBLA material

[counterpunch]

How is the Sierra Club similar to NAMBLA?

[John Valentine]

Well, I stand corrected. There IS a Peter Herman and yet another pervert.

You know, I made a cursory search of the NAMBLA website looking for any mention of the name and didn't find this. Of course, I was in a hurry to get the heck off the site and I didn';t see this link.

Neither was I able to find any NAMBLA press releases on the site.

Perhaps I jumped to a certain conclusion too quickly, but if that press release is genuine, then these pevs have successfully become a parody of themselves.

[counterpunch]

I found it by doing a Google search for "Peter Herman NAMBLA".

[Catspaw]

If Hostettler's jurisdiction stripping bill makes it through the House and Senate and is signed into law, couldn't this law be challenged in the courts? It would seem that it could be--and the courts could declare the law to be unconstitutional.

And are there any other instances of the Congress passing laws that say the courts do not have jurisdiction over a certain subject or topic?

[Imagine]

Fellow Patriots: This is extremely important to support the stripping effort. It is time that the courts are brought back into line with the mainstream views of America -- those that are consistent with the founding principles. We must mount a two-prong attack on the court's violation of our principles -- this the stipping effort plus the continued effort to change the constitution.

Another vital (but parallel) effort is to define the unborn as individuals entitled to the rights of citizens under the constitution.

[Susannah]

This is the email address that showed at the whois at dnhsstuff.com:

aschweitzer2@yahoo.com

[Condor51]

It's the "full faith & credit clause" of the U.S. Constitution.

[xzins]

The U.S. Constitution establishes only the Supreme Court but leaves it to Congress to “ordain and establish” the lower federal courts. Arguably, therefore, Congress has the right determine the federal courts’ jurisdiction.

This author must not have read the constitution lately. It clearly GRANTS Congress the authority to limit jurisdiction in Article 3, Sect 2, I believe. There's no "arguably" about it.

[ATOMIC_PUNK]

Read the article its almost the same thing wor for word but a different subject i did a search on the fellow who wrote the letter his name popped up in the sierra website archives