Posted on 07/26/2006 8:05:00 AM PDT by goodnesswins
Washington Supreme Court has issued ruling upholding Washington State's BAN on Gay Marriage
Finally something went our way! Kinda shocked actually.
As for the polygamy, most folks still think of a relationship as involving one-on-one. Besides, how many people anywhere even know a polygamist? Far more know gay and lesbian couples, and heterosexual couples who are living together without marriage.
Was it Massachusets that recently went to socialist health care? I know S. Frisky did, but I though Kamel Lot did as well.
They should start advertizing here, maybe utilizing that widescreen I-5 billboard in Fife, and others in the university district about how weather is nice and life is gay in Kamel Lot, maybe start a chain of Hairy Terry Kerry Kamel Lot bath houses....free UN Piecekeeper towels to the 1st 100,000 visitors.....
They better hurry, too, because the legislature might let the voters overthrow the robes soon....that's not meant to sound kinky btw, it just came out like that.
Yes you are right but I was thinking of the 10th Amendment being adhered to.
That is not true. Here is the law... pay attention to the red typeface.
Article IV.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.
Only Congress can define the effect...
The best case scenario for conservatives is that the activist courts keep overturning gay marriage bans. That will help us in actual elections the most.
That is not true. Here is the law... pay attention to the red typeface.
Article IV.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.
Only Congress can define the effect by law...
Now on to the rollback of 50 years of leftist judicial activism that has illegally rewritten our Constitution. BUMP
ROTFLMAO!
There are some damn pissed off liberals in the big I-5 corridor cities today. Maybe you never see them where you are, but I do. All they have to do is put down that joint on Election Day, get out there and vote, and we never get a Republican, even a RINO, ever again in statewide office.
The Federal Constitution has nothing to do with performing marriages. Only in recognizing documents and contracts issued in other states.
That is not true. Here is the law... pay attention to the red typeface.
Article IV.
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.
Only Congress can define the effect by law...
_________________________________________________________
There is still the tenth amendment which is what I had in mind when I said the federal government has no jurisdiction over whether or not marriages can be PERFORMED. The Feds cannot make laws about performing homosexual marriage except for overseas jurisdiction/military etc. The Congress may only prescribe ways to proove whether a marriage license is valid if a state chooses to grant one.
Neither a gay marriage or civil union initiative would pass in WA. They would probably have a struggle just to gather enough signatures to get it on the ballot. Their only hope would be for the legislature to pass a modification to the DOMA that would then would be tested in the courts for constitutionality.
But... but... I thought we needed to amend the U.S. Constitution to prevent courts from overturning these laws? (/sarcasm)
Allow me give you a primer of sorts...
Some of us believe marriage is a sacrament and as such has no business having gov't involvement--leave that to houses of worship.
For gov't interest, primarily to record information in case of divorce or death, any consenting adult couples should be able to participate in civil unions.
This could benefit society by discouraging homosexuals from anonymous and promiscuous behavior (too often in public areas). As such it could help curb health-care costs by decreasing the multiplier effect of STD outbreaks. It benefits society when folks are paired to see one-another into their decline rather than becoming a burden on society. These 'civil unions' should continue to stay a state's right to define.
Since we live in a society which tolerates single-parenthood either never married or surviving spouses, no fault divorce and other libertarian freedoms, you cannot make a strong argument adding 'homosexual marriage' would undermine society/family/etc.
So long as we remained a 'free society', my prediction is a "defense of marriage" codified in the federal constitution would ultimately be repealed within 50 years.
If they take this view, it makes no sense for them to not come to the MA. court's view. They either don't believe the above or lacked courage of their states convictions.
In no way do I find abortion a 'fundamental liberty interest' most especially when rape/incest pregnancies are a statistical triviality compared with abortion-as-contraception. Technology has provided a wide range of true contraceptive methods thus there should be near zero abortions. If you play with fire you must be prepared for any consequences.
King County is incredibly liberal and with its huge population narrowly tips the scales against the rest of the state. It's a bit like CA being controlled by LA and the Bay-area while the rest suffers. This is exactly why we must preserve the electoral college at the national level else everything would be determined by urban megalopolis pockets and such places are liberal Rat-strangleheld cess pools almost by default.
This is why 'civil unions' make sense if folks insist on keeping the term "marriage" in the gov't lexicon.
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.