Gay marriage and the law

quote:

---

In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word “marriage” means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word “spouse” refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.

​

No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship." Title 28: Chapter 115 1738C of the United States Code

---

Subbie, that's plain English. The US government does not recognize homosexual unions as being legal. Furthermore, no State, no territory, nothing within the confines or jurisdiction of the United States will recognize such a union. It is therefore illegal -- meaning, NOT legal.This more than substantiates my claim. As much as we all love it when you talk dirty to me, you should be careful. This is grounds for a suspension. Take it down a notch and try to remember that this is a forum. You could have fooled me. Awesome... Take it up with Congress, who made it illegal. You will never see the word 'abomination' used anywhere on any legal document because it injects emotion in to the law. Since DOMA is in fact a law, and one that renders your entire argument moot, it more than amply shows that even lawmakers understand that such an aberration should not be allowed. There you go talking dirty again. Subbie, you've lost the debate. I have unambiguously supported that homosexual marriage is not legal. Surely you know this, as your attitude has given away your hand! Just go ahead and fold now and spare yourself the embarrassment of having to resort to ad hominem. Since when? You said, US law. And since the 14th Amendment could be so broadly construed to mean anything you want it to be, explain why homosexual marriage fits the criteria. And I have provided the LEGAL basis for the moral. What more is there to discuss?I even stated the pro's and con's of allowing it. I even said that I believe the Federal government should be out of the debate, and that it should be left for the states to decide for themselves, which in effect, I am agreeing with you to some degree. For some odd reason, that wasn't good enough for you. Unless I completely bow to you and convert to your rationale (i use that word loosely) you won't be satisfied.But that is my personal belief. The matter we are now engaged in is if it is illegal. For some bizarre reason, you refuse to concede this point despite it being glaringly obvious.

---

“There is something which unites magic and applied science while separating both from the 'wisdom' of earlier ages. For the wise men of old the cardinal problem had been how to conform the soul to objective reality, and the solution had been knowledge, self-discipline, and virtue. For magic and applied science alike the problem is how to subdue reality to the wishes of men: the solution is a technique; and both, in the practice of this technique, are ready to do things hitherto regarded as disgusting and impious" -C.S. Lewis

Leetle problem, Juggs m'boy. You thinkin' Massachusetts is floutin' federal law?

No worries, Rahvin.Juggs has this convenient habit of not answering when he gets his ass kicked by the facts.You will notice that he keeps fighting (Message 61) only when he thinks he's got a snowball's chance in hell.So don't expect a response re: abomination UNDER THE LAW or heterosexual pedophiles. Poor bastard hasn't got a leg to stand on.And as soon as he gets a gander at Massachusetts law (Message 61), he won't answer that post either.Poor, poor Juggs. Can't argue his positions based on the facts. Has t'run with his tail tucked between his legs the minute somebody bothers to check his "facts".You have to pity someone like Juggs. Really, you do. Best he can hope for is t'toss a load of horseshit at someone who doesn't have the common sense to google. Anyone with an internet connection can tear him a new asshole in 3.2 seconds flat.Edited by molbiogirl, : No reason given.

Hi Nem, An emotive argument? What, you mean like comparing homosexuality to paedophilia? Why on earth do you link to the North American Man-Boy Love Association to talk about Wilde? Do you get a lot of your reference material from paedophile websites, or do you just want to give NAMBLA a few extra hits? FYI Wilde's boyfriend was a fully grown man at the time of the comments on your linked page. The Wilde quote exclusively mentions "a younger man", not a child. He is talking about young men, not children. Actually, Wilde is an excellent example of how oppression of homosexuals harms society. Wilde was a married man, living a lie, a situation that was hardly fair on his long-suffering wife. If there had been gay marriage back then, this ugly charade would not have been necessary.
The point is that you would seek to deny a whole raft of people a chance at happiness. What possible business is it of yours if two people want to make a public statement of love for one another? Why should you have the right to interfere? Why can't you just be happy for them? I'm sure that homosexuality was illegal in Denmark once. The fact remains that the Danish experience proves your paedophile prediction wrong. You said you would be happy to be wrong. Why no celebration? I wish. They look like they're having a lot of fun, engaging in a bit of harmless dressing up (or dressing down). Why is that such a threat to you?

---

Mutate and Survive

Hi CS,
I can't agree with you when you say that laws against gay marriage are not discriminatory. Heterosexuals have a chance of finding a partner that they love and making a public statement of that love, in marriage. Homosexuals don't. Clear discrimination. It amounts to "anyone can marry who they like, so long as my religion says it's OK". I thought that kind of thing was unconstitutional in the States.
Of course homosexuals could marry a partner of the opposite sex, but what is the point in that? These sham marriages are disasters. Waving this option in the face of gay people is deeply patronising, as it is a non-option.
Anyone can marry their chosen partner except for homosexuals. How do you work out that there's no discrimination there?
By the way, your point about hermaphrodites in Message 38 is a valid one, despite the semi-serious way you bring it up. Should intersex people be barred from marriage? There a lot more out there than you might think.

---

Mutate and Survive

Keep discussion civil and avoid inflammatory behavior that might distract attention from the topic. Argue the position, not the person.Argue the position, not the person.Discussing the person is off topic.Reminder of the originator's wishes (Message 1): Please direct any comments concerning this Admin msg to the Moderation Thread.

​

Any response in this thread will receive a 24 hour timeout.Thank you

quote:

---

In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word “marriage” means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word “spouse” refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.

​

No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship." Title 28: Chapter 115 1738C of the United States Code

---

Well, Binky, you did get one thing right, it is plain English, which makes it all the more baffling that you can't read and understand it. Here, let me focus on one little bit.

quote:

---

No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect

---

Reading comprehension much?It doesn't say no state shall recognize gay marriage. It says no state shall be required to recognize another state's gay marriage.If you still don't understand, return to 3rd grade because you can't read. Probably, but fooling you is no great accomplishment. You fool yourself without even knowing it. Well, gotta give you credit for at least admitting once that you lied. Now either tell me when homosexuality has been illegal or admit you lied there, too. You think I'm getting the Fourteenth Amendment wrong? Fine. Prove it. Provide an analysis, supported by relevant precedent. It doesn't mean anything I want it to. This is what the Supreme Court says it means.As far as explaining why it fits, that's what I've been doing this entire thread. If you can't get it, don't blame me. Sue the schools that didn't teach you how to read and understand.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

That's weak, CS.DOMA was backlash.After fighting for about 10 years, the movement to open civil marriage to same-sex couples achieved its first temporary success in 1993 with the decision of the Hawaii Supreme Court that the restriction of marriage to opposite-sex couples would be unconstitutional.It was becoming patently obvious a same sex marriage law was bound to pass in some state, some time soon.And the bigots knew the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution was going to cause some problems. That clause says, in effect, that states must give effect to each other's public acts, records, and judicial proceedings. And among such acts would be the act of performing a marriage.DOMA passed in 1996.8 weeks before the presidential election.The anti-gay marriage state laws soon followed. The first was passed in 1998. In a red state. Followed by 15 states in 2004. 14 of which were red states. Followed by 2 in 2005. Both red states. Followed by 7 in 2006. 6 of which were red states.Of these, all but 4 were passed within 2 weeks of an election day.Starting to get the picture, CS?No? OK. Why do you suppose that is, CS? Why would anti gay marriage legislators need to prevent the issue from being heard in a federal court?I'll tell you why, CS. Because DOMA has the effect of modifying the U.S. Constitution's Full Faith and Credit Clause, something that Congress does not have the power to do without following the proper procedures for constitutional amendment.Virtually all constitutional scholars agree that the U.S. Supreme Court -- especially the conservative justices who like to be consistent in constitutional interpretations -- would rule that full faith and credit takes precedent.Which is why Republicans have introduced a Federal Marriage Amendment to the Constitution each year since DOMA passed.Starting to get the picture, CS?No? OK. In the past, 3 constitutional amendments were proposed that would have enshrined a ban on interracial marriage in the constitution.Starting to get the picture, CS?No? OK. To quote the Alaskan judge who ruled in 1998 that same sex marriage is allowed under the Alaska State Constitution."The right to choose one’s life partner is constitutionally fundamental.""Government intrusion into the choice of a life partner encroaches on the intimate personal decisions of the individual," the judge wrote. "The relevant question is not whether same-sex marriage is so rooted in our traditions . . . , but whether the freedom to choose one’s own life partner is so rooted in our traditions."Quote: Cedar Lane Unitarian Universalist Church | Cedar Lane Unitarian Universalist ChurchStarting to get the picture, CS?No? OK. In 1978, the U.S. Supreme Court in Zablocki v. Redhail declared that marriage is “of fundamental importance to all individuals,” “one of the basic civil rights of man”, and “the most important relation in life”. It declared “the right to marry is part of the fundamental right to privacy” in the U.S. Constitution.Starting to get the picture, CS?No? OK. Guess why anti sodomy laws were ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.The fundamental right to privacy."The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the court's majority. "The state cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime."Quote: ErrorStarting to get the picture, CS?No? OK. What are some other things that were "understood" about marriage for the most of history of this nation?No miscegenation.
No divorce.
No contraception.
No legal rights (property, child custody, contractual, control of earnings, etc.) for women.
No criminal or civil liability for women.
No such thing as marital rape. Until 1978!
Age of consent: 10 years old.Marriage as a cultural norm, as a familial relationship, and as a legal status has done nothing but change.Civil unions just don't cut it.A 2004 study by the Congressional Budget Office found 1,138 federal statutes are related to marriage benefits.To name a few:Inheritance rights
Insurance
Taxes
Child custody
Child support
Alimony
Domestic violence
Adoption
Property inheritance
Family leave
Suing for wrongful death (and any other tort or law related to spousal relationships)
Hospital visitation
Health care decision-making
Durable power of attorneyMarriage is a civil RIGHT that is afforded ALL our citizens. The right to pursue happiness, remember?

is described in the declaration of independence, which is not a government document. it is part of our national heritage, but it was not produced by the united states of america and has no binding power over american laws. sorry.however. the fact that these protections of the law are available to some citizens in some relationships with consenting adults and not all citizens in all relationships with consenting adults is sufficient to demand equal protection under the law which is a binding law of the united states of america. btw. due process of law refers to eminent domain and the confication of property or rights from those who have committed crimes. it does not mean 'except when you make laws restricting rights because of "tradition"'.

I didn't mean to suggest that it was.

it does no good, in a discussion of law, to discuss terminology that is not binding.

quote:

---

Teen, you need to broaden your POV.

---

Ok.

quote:

---

Marriage is a cross-cultural phenomenon with a very long history.

---

I thought the topic of this thread was gay marriage and the law, specifically the United States of America Law.Are you saying that at some point in the history of our nation, marriage was not a secular institution and that a simple declaration of marriage by a pastor was good enough?

You specifically asked if there was any law prohibiting gay marriage. There is. If you would like to discuss what the entailments of the 14th Amendment cover, then we can do that. Forgive my saying so, but it certainly seems that you are bent on only discussing this amendment, presumably because it is cryptic enough to pass a whale through a net, or to smuggle an elephant in a suitcase. I certainly agree. I even went so far as to say that I don't agree with DOMA, in many regards, because it takes away the State's rights, and the rights of a religion. I even said in the Huckabee thread that I would even join you in seeing it overturn on that basis. My personal beliefs about homosexuality be damned.No one wanted to pay attention to that. It seems some are just bent on arguing with personal beliefs, rather than the actual premise, which is what the law states. That's fine. You are entitled to an opinion without the fear of reprisal. My issue is this: When I mention things like pedophilia, rape, incest, etc, I am not attempting to equivocate the action of homosexuality to be as bad, less bad, or more bad than any of those things. About the only parity I find is that they are sexual sins. As a non-believer, I won't expect that to mean anything to you, which is why I don't harp on that position. I also will not attempt to place them in linear fashion. That is not a position of mine, as I am not the Judge. What I am trying to do, is to get the readers thinking in the very pragmatic way they allege they use, but ironically, do not when it comes to discussions like this. I am asking them, on what basis is homosexuality a fundamental right, and yet, prohibit the others?On what basis? On what authority? Why is one intrinsically good, where the others are intrinsically bad? What arbitrates such things without invoking something beyond arbitrary rules? Nobody answers this with cogency. And the reason is because they have nowhere to answer this, because they have no greater authority in which to instill these principles. They have no point of reference. When attempting to answer it, is as if they are stating that intrinsic values are intrinsic because they are intrinsic. In other words, its circular.Nature does not care about "rights." Nature, itself, cannot offer these things to you because it presumably hasn't the mind to do so. So where then do you get this feeling that homosexuality is perfectly fine, and is perfectly natural, but something such as incest or pedophilia is a moral tragedy? Are you not unwittingly using a Judeo-Christian ethos in order to subvert all Judeo-Christian ethics? As a result of the inanity of it, do you not have to invent some Darwinian reason in order to rationalize your position? The answer yes, you do. But unconvincingly so, in my opinion.Watching people fumble and flounder on that position is all I see. And if it forces people to see the weakness of their most basic beliefs by showing them that there very foundation is without meaning, I am more than happy to expose it. Because at least then they might finally come to the most inescapable of conclusions. I answer people in sequential order, as I feel obligated to answer them in the order in which it is received. On a popular thread, such as this one, I typically generate approximately 4 replies per every post I make. Add them up. Couple this with the fact that I have other threads I'm engaged on, as well a life outside of EvC, and it should be reasonable to assume that it is going to take me some time to get to your post(s). Edited by Nemesis Juggernaut, : edit for typos

---

“There is something which unites magic and applied science while separating both from the 'wisdom' of earlier ages. For the wise men of old the cardinal problem had been how to conform the soul to objective reality, and the solution had been knowledge, self-discipline, and virtue. For magic and applied science alike the problem is how to subdue reality to the wishes of men: the solution is a technique; and both, in the practice of this technique, are ready to do things hitherto regarded as disgusting and impious" -C.S. Lewis

quote:

---

I'm not saying separate but equal -- everyone can have a civil union.

---

Again, American history tells us that marriage has always been a secular institution. Why on Earth would we want to get rid of it?I'm having trouble understanding why we should get rid of it just because a minority group of people wanted the same rights.Again, some southern states were willing to close down all their public schools rather than allow African American school children to attend the same schools as the white children. What you are proposing sounds eerily similar to what the southern states wanted to do. It's like burning your cherished book just so someone else couldn't read it.Is there a reason why you think same sex marriage would ruin your marriage?

quote:

---

People can also have a religious ceremony at the church of their choice to make additional vows, celebrate, etc. That part is optional for anyone (and you can always start a church if you can't find one you like eh?)

---

As far as I know, it's already optional for anyone. I have a friend who married his girlfriend in a court and then had a private celebration with his friends. I've also been to weddings that were held in churches.Is there a reason why you think gay people getting a secular marriage would ruin your marriage?

You didn't even need the pastor.Common law marriage was the rule. In 1800, the states took over.And, when Utah was still a territory, polygamy was allowed. Hell, polygamy is still allowed, even tho it's illegal (Colorado City).