Posted on 06/03/2006 4:59:01 PM PDT by DBeers
Now that's quite a leap. Why was my use of the word homophobe inevitable, and how does it relate to either this issue or all of my other opinions concerning society? Did you fail to read past that at all? Were there any misrepresentations I made? Did I state any untrue fact? What about the whole of the argument? You are very concerned about that word, but that tiny minority I have labeled has referred to me as a homo lover, homo agenda proponent, socialist, fascist, Marxist, leftist, homo lib, and yes, even a terrorist. All of this because I believe everyone is entitled to due process and the right to privacy. So are you sure the use of that word by me is all that bad?
The "tiny" minority you mention has produced a torrent of pro-traditional-marriage state legislation (19 and counting) and would probably pass in every state given the choice.
Not at all. I'm referring to those who share the values of a certain few on a ping list they have said they prefer I not refer to. They spend their entire waking day finding reasons to eliminate homosexuality from the face of the earth. They have no other interests, either social or political. They are complete crusaders for as they refer to it "the truth" in spite of their numerous misstatements, lies, mischaracterizations and violating every fallacy of logical debate. They permit no questions of any statement they make, and threaten continually to have the questioner banned. They file numerous complaints with the moderators. I don't think that is the mainstream of America who in spite of their acceptance of homosexuality as a fact of life, still believe a marriage is between one man and one woman. They, not this tiny misguided minority, bear the responsibility for passage of those laws.
Since you constantly crow about state's rights and your opposition to gay marriage,
That is another misstatement. States have no rights, only powers derived from the US Constitution. People have rights, and these just rights cannot be abrogated by any state.
if you have voted or would vote for a state marriage ammendment in your state uncategorically defining marriage as exclusively between one man and one woman?
I absolutely would have just as I voted for Colorado's Amendment 2 (which in retrospect was a mistake). Nonetheless, as I have repeatedly stated, I believe in the institution of marriage as between one woman and one man. But I just as vehemently believe that if another state chooses to define marriage differently than my state, they have the freedom to do that. As long as my state does not have to recognize it, I'm fine.
If one state recognizes homosexual marriage, don't other states have to also? For example, if a person is married in New Hampshire and moves to Texas, aren't they still married according to law?
No they don't. The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), signed into law in 1996, provides that no state has to recognize same sex marriages for any purpose from any other state. That law was required or the Full Faith and Credit clause of Article IV would have required the recognition. Courts have upheld the constitutionality of the DOMA.
This is clearly an inaccurate characterization of the Marriage Protection Amendment's effect. It would in fact declare marriage in the U.S. to be only between one man and one woman. Thus, a legislature would NOT be free to "legalize homosexual 'marriage'," and appropriately, shouldn't be.
Based upon my interpretation which hinges principally on one word, "construe", which I assume was chosen specifically and intentionally I would disagree with your assessment regarding the freedom of a legislature.
ARTICLESECTION 1. This article may be cited as the ‘Marriage Protection Amendment’.
SECTION 2. Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.’’.
CONSTRUE: To adduce or explain the meaning of; interpret...
In my opinion the Amendment simply removes a judicial ability to construe a marital construct and leaves open the question legislatively at both federal and state levels (which still leaves open no matter how remote the possibility of majority delusion and madness - LOL)...
Thanks for your reply. I appreciate the information.
I'm wondering how this is administered in practice. There are various things such as insurance, loans, legal liability etc. I have no idea if or how many of these are federal or state. And if someone in the case above moves to Texas and says "married' on a particular form, is the form null and void? Does anyone check?
I can't imagine they turn in their license when they cross the state line. Maybe there's not a simple answer to this; I can imagine great complexity in administering the law...
Interesting question. The law says that the federal government does not recognize gay marriage for any purposes, so in order to say file a joint tax return you would have to be married for federal purposes. Could you get away with it illegally? Yes, but not legally. As for another state, any benefits you might acrue from the original state that would continue (insurance for example) would not be stopped as long as the original state continued the benefits. But the new state would not recognize the certificate as valid. No business in the new state would recognize it, though I assume as with non married heterosexuals, they could apply for loans or buy homes with both names on the documentation. The only real benefit, if you can call it that would be taxes.
It won't pass. Why are we wasting time debating this? It has no chance of passing.
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.