'A coming storm': Amendment may be only way to head off church-state clash over same-sex marriage

http://www.worldmag.com/articles/11926 ^ | Lynn Vincent

[MichiganConservative]

What is "conferring the right to contract to persons incapable of contract"?

My position is that there is no right to marry for anyone and that there is no right to enter into any particular contract or to be offered a contract by anyone for anything. I didn't say anything regarding contracts for people that are incapable of contract, nor for contracts for illegal things such as murder.

[RobbyS]

Before you can contract, you have to have the capacity to do so. A 15-year old cannot legally sign a sales agreement.

[MichiganConservative]

OK, so are you saying that gays should be given the legal ability to enter into marriage contracts?

I guess this goes back to what I was saying earlier about how the government should get out of the marriage business and out of the redistribution of wealth business. The government shouldn't care if you're married to a tree.

[RobbyS]

No. Two men can no more marry than a two-year old can drive a car.

[Republic If You Can Keep It]

A marriage amendment to the Constitution erodes the right of self determination of the states and increases dictatorial powers of the federal government.

Actually you have it exactly backwards.

The amendment, if passed, will prevent one state from imposing it's will on the other 49 through "full faith & credit".

So the amendment is precisely what is needed.

[VeritatisSplendor]

I know in England you either got a license from the bishop to be married, or had the banns read three weeks in a row. The marriage was entered in the parish registry - the Church of England was a state church. Roman Catholic marriages were not legally recognized.

How this translated to the colonies and to the early states, I'm not quite sure. But marriage was recognized by the state to the extent that men were not required to support bastards for instance.

Mrs VS

[Tunehead54]

There is a part of our US Constitution called the full faith and credit clause. It is generally interpreted to mean that one state must respect the official decrees and acts of another state. If one state says a couple is married then all states must respect that fact. Or divorced. Or Father and daughter. Man & Goat. Man & Dog. Man, boyfriend, 3 other gals and the goat. Take your pick. Amid this craziness I'm going with a man & a woman.

---

Without a constitutional provision we (in Florida) or wherever have to recognize unions California or Massachusetts recognizes. No thanks. Clear? :-)

[mugs99]

The amendment, if passed, will prevent one state from imposing it's will on the other 49 through "full faith & credit".
Nonsense. We already have that protection.

So the amendment is precisely what is needed
No amendment is needed. All states have the power to prohibit same sex marriage and all states have the power to refuse to recognize a prohibited marriage from another state. You want to regulate marriage at the federal level.

The Constitution is not a toy to be played with to satisfy your moral point of view. Leave it alone!
.

[spikeytx86]

I believe I stated that I now support the amendment :-)

[Tunehead54]

Oops! Please see #47. Sorry. ;-)

Muggs - you too.

[Tunehead54]

Sorry - still catching up I guess. ;-)

[mugs99]

Muggs - you too.

California refused to recognize Mississippi marriages until they raised their minimum age. There are hundreds of other examples. Want more?
.

[Tunehead54]

Please just show me one cite of the SCOTUS denying the validity of another state's official acts regarding individual citizens. Complications arise when a state sues another - there are provisions and cases on this subject as well.

---

;-)

[Tunehead54]

I should also have mentioned that even federal law except in supremacy clause cases (federal pre-emption) recognizes state law in state matters such as Florida's Homestead Exemption which makes your "castle" exempt from Fed Bankruptcy law no matter how much it is worth or where the funds came from. Sorry to end a sentence with a preposition.

---

;-)

[Texas Songwriter]

My thoughts exactly.

[mugs99]

Please just show me one cite of the SCOTUS denying the validity of another state's
Why? I already gave one example in post 52 of one state refusing to accept another states' marriage law.

I should also have mentioned that even federal law except in supremacy clause cases (federal pre-emption) recognizes state law in state matters such as Florida's Homestead Exemption
Yet they want to deny state law in marriage matters?
Your smoke and mirrors won't work. This is a another federal power grab and mission creep will take it in a whole new direction. We were told the Patriot Act was needed to catch terrorists but now it's being used to take cold tablets off of store shelves.

You guys never tell the truth and I, for one, sure don't trust you with the Constitution.
.

[dalight]

This is as unfair as saying that David Koresh represents all Christians. Give me a break.