Replies

Oklahoma would appear to be in violation of the "full faith and credit" clause of the Constitution. As such, I'd have to favor the plaintiffs.

Which leads us to what happens when a same-sex couple, married in Massachusetts, moves to (say) Oklahoma and seeks to exercise the rights of a married couple there. State DOMAs don't appear to me to hold much water. It'll take a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage across the country.

I'd settle for an Ammendment the reinforced state's rights on family issues. I can't believe its come to that, but it has. Republican dumbasses who are enthusiastic about a Guiliani Presidency don't seem to comprehend the road we're headed down. The one fringe benefit of such a law is that it would tend to concentrate the sodomites in particular geographic areas. Fewer brimstone targets.

You are sick! Homosexuals should not be allowed to adopt kids, that are not their own. Its all about people who are so self-centered that all they think about is what they want, and dam anyone else. WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN? Studies have shown that two same sex couples are the worst thing for children. Also, gay parents tend to be less stable and more abusive. It come down to we should not be experimenting with the lives of children, just to appease perverts.

The Supreme Court has ruled in two cases on the extent of the Full Faith and Credit Clause. The first Pacific Employers Ins Co V Industrial Accident Commission of California 306 US 493 (1939) The Court ruled : "we think the conclusion is unavoidable that the full faith and credit clause does not require one state to substitute for its own statute, applicable to persons and events within it, the conflicting statute of another state, even though that statute is of controlling force in the courts of the state of its enactment with respect to the same persons and events."

The court restated this principle in Sun Oil CO V Wortman 486 US 717 (1988) where it stated "The Full Faith and Credit Clause does not compel a state to substitute the statutes of another state for its own statutes dealing with a subject matter concerning which it is competent to legislate."

In regards to the Adoption Ban, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals recently upheld the Florida Adoption Law. In that decision, the court made clear what others have stated all along, Lawrence V Texas DID NOT Establish a Fundamental right to anything, instead it used only a very limited rational basis test. Marriage laws and Adoption Laws can pass a rational basis test.

Further Case law from the 11th Circuit upheld an Alabama ban on sex toys, and made clear the there is no fundamental right to "autonomy" or "privacy" as the ACLU spews.

In addition, in regards to marriage, a case that the perverts and activists never talk about is Baker V Nelson.

In that Case the United States Supreme Court affirmed that states can prohibit deviant perverts from redefining the marriage institution.

gee there sure is alot of bigotry and homophobia on here the majority of the self righteous bigots on here should be ashamed of themselevs how dare you lot criticise and use your typical out of date and ignorant views on homosexuals.

the majority of you people on here are dam homophobes and why simply because you dont like people that are different to you you feel that gives you the right to hate them and condem them.

shame on all of you you lot are friggin gutless and insecure and you hide behind your book of lies which is the bible and you use god as an excuse to hate people that are different to all of you.

i know that not all people on here are ignorant but most of you are so shame on the rest of you shame shame shame on you.

god is not pleased with your arogance bigotry and prejudice.

Not necissarily. FL's ban on homosexual adoptions was upheld.

I suspect this is a lamda legal effort to "backdoor" FFC much like they are trying to use Mass. for force immigration visas for canadian homosexual "marriage".

FFC is not exclusive there is even precident for not recognizing certain marriages based on age of consent or closeness of relations. (ex: too young to get married)

There is no societal reason for homosexuals to be allowed to adopt children.

It'll take a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage across the country.

Yes it will, adoption and marriage are not the same thing as say a state permitting the purchase of alcohol within their boundarys. They also can't just prohibit their entry. When Bush said he would support an ammendment I believe he had this in mind. Of course the judicial could rule that this is not a case for full faith and credit, and congress has already passed a law allowing the states to do this kind of legislation. But we will see.