Boy shuns Pledge of Allegiance for Gay Rights

Huntard writes:

quote:

---

Make every marriage a "civil union"

---

This will require rewriting literally tens of thousands of laws across federal, state, and municipal jurisdictions. All currently "married" couples will need to be relicensed as the contracts refer to "marriage," not "civil union." Too, this will mean that no federally recognized contract will be recognized outside of the United States because other countries recognize "marriage," not "civil union." If you were to try to provide your old "marriage" license, you would be engaging in fraud because you no longer have a "marriage" contract.That's the problem with the argument that this is just a matter of semantics. It isn't. There is a whole structure of legal activity predicated around the contract of "marriage" that simply cannot be adjusted by later writing, "Well, we really mean 'civil union,' instead." Legal precedent is that words have specific meanings. That's why the warnings say, "Do not fold, spindle, or mutilate." You'd think that "mutilate" would cover the first two, but it doesn't. They are different things and thus different words are used.

quote:

---

Are people really that retarded to protest because it just has a different name?

---

It isn't a question of people. It's a question of the law. Your "civil union" isn't recognized here because it isn't a "marriage." That's the law. If it were a marriage, you'd call it a "marriage." Since you're calling it something else, that means it is something else and thus cannot be a "marriage."

quote:

---

By the way, this is kinda how it works in my country. Church marriages have no legal status whatsoever, in fact, you can't get married by a church unless you first get married by law. It's just called marriage all around.

---

That's pretty much how it works in the US, too: A church marriage means absolutely nothing. The only way to get a legal marriage is to go to the clerk and sign a marriage contract. Now, priests, captains of ships, and various other people are commonly given authority by the state to fill in the appropriate paperwork on that contract, but it's still a legal contract, not a religious one.That was a lovely ceremony, but the couple didn't actually get married standing in front of the altar. They got married when they signed a piece of paper back in the priest's office. The priest may decide not to sign it unless they went through the ceremony, but the ceremony has no legal standing.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

Hyroglyphx writes:

quote:

---

The problem is, what "rights" are actually afforded in the Constitution? "Liberty" is subjective to who states what the entailments of liberty should be defined as, and "all" could be inclusive to children too.

---

Child abuse. Of course, I'm not surprised that the moment you thought about having sex with someone of your own sex, you immediately jumped to considering molesting a child. That's par for the course.At any rate, it would behoove you to do some research on what the Supreme Court has ruled regarding the rights of children.At any rate, back to the real topic rather than your pathetic attempt to derail it with a "gay people are equivalent to child molestors" sidetrack:As Loving v. Virginia put it: Are you saying the SCOTUS was wrong in this decision?Hint: Remember the Tenth Amendment. The Constitution is not a laundry list.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

Hyroglyphx writes:

quote:

---

I don't believe that it is right that a Christian society be demanded that they have to forsake their roots and their time-honored beliefs to cater to the whims of a minority when it is expressly prohibited.

---

And thus, the Loving v. Virginia case was wrongly decided, right? It was not right for a Christian society to be told that their roots and time-honored beliefs of not mixing races needed to be discarded for the whims of the minority when it was expressly prohibited.What? You mean not one Christian anywhere was forced into an interracial marriage simply because the Constitution expressly demanded equal protection under the law? They didn't have to change their beliefs? Not one religious official was forced to marry anybody his religion forbade him from marrying?Oh, then surely you're saying the 19th Amendment was a complete offense to those Christians who were certain that women were not allowed to have any authority over men. How dare the people decide that women should be allowed to vote on the status of men!What's that you say? The Constitution trumps any religious opinion?Wow. One has to wonder why you think an argument that is a crock of shit when applied to race or sex suddenly gains legitimacy when applied to sexual orientation.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

Hyroglyphx writes:

quote:

---

Right, so let the church handle it and not the government is what I'm saying.

---

Indeed. The government has chosen the word "marriage." If the churches can't handle it, then they are perfectly free to come up with a new word or phrase to describe their "not legal marriage" ceremony.Hey! They already have! "Holy matrimony."So everything's settled. If you want to get "married," you go to the county clerk. If you want to be blessed in "holy matrimony," you go to church.What's your problem?

quote:

---

And I'm saying that the government never had a right (at least in the US) to start butting its nose in the affairs of the church to begin with.

---

And this would be where you provide evidence that this has ever happened.After all, when Loving v. Virginia was decided, was any church that was adamant about race-mixing forced to change anything about their practices?No?Then what makes you think that doing for sexual orientation what was done for race will be any different? If it's a crock of shit when applied to race, why does it suddenly gain legitimacy when applied to sexual orientation?

quote:

---

The State should have never got involved in marriage to begin with, as it is a clear intrusion of the Establishment Clause.

---

This is where you show how the legal contract of marriage has any religious purpose of any kind. Just try to get married in a Mormon temple without being a Mormon or a Catholic church without being Catholic...and yet you can still get married despite your complete and utter failure to meet the religious requirements.If atheists can get married, then clearly there is no religious foundation to marriage.

quote:

---

Right, so let the ceremony of whatever religion determine how to marry someone, not the State.

---

That's already the case. You can have whatever ceremony you wish. You're not married until you sign the paper. That's a lovely service you just had, but that couple is still "living in sin" until they go back to the priest's office and sign the marriage contract.

quote:

---

Right, so it would be about respecting the wishes of the church and the wishes of its congregation.

---

Right, and we certainly learned our lesson after the Loving v. Virginia decision, didn't we. I mean, all those priests were forced to marry interracial couples in complete violation of all their religious dogma. Don't you remember the great riot of '71 when 34 interracial couples stormed a church in Mobile and forced the priest there to marry them in front of the entire white congregation?What's that? You mean not one church had to change its proscriptions and teachings when interracial marriage was made the law of the land?Hmmm...then why would it be any different this time? If your argument is a crock of shit when applied to race, why does it suddenly gain legitimacy when applied to sexual orientation?

quote:

---

So it all comes down to a word, instead of a principle?

---

The word is the principle. Everybody knows what "marriage" is. There is absolutely no confusion anywhere when Jane and June say that they got "married." There is an entire legal framework that is in place for dealing with that legal contract.If anybody's religious concept cannot handle this, then they are perfectly free to come up with a new word or phrase to describe their ceremony.Hey! They already have! "Holy matrimony."So everything's settled, then. If you want to get "married," you go to the county clerk. If you want to be blessed in "holy matrimony," you go to church.

quote:

---

If homosexuals want to be married (as in legal recognition of their union) what difference does it make if we call it apple pie?

---

Because the contract is called "marriage" and there are literally tens of thousands of laws that are connected to that word. Is your argument seriously that it is better to attempt to get the feds, all 50 states plus the territories and other possessions, and every county and city to rewrite their laws rather than to just repeat the same process that we did with Loving v. Virginia?If your argument is a crock of shit when applied to race, why does it suddenly gain legitimacy when applied to sexual orientation?

quote:

---

A word is designed to fit the definition, not the other way around.

---

Indeed. And everybody knows what the word "marriage" means and there is absolutely no confusion when we here that Jane and June are "married." The only confusion comes in with the religious conceptualization of a committed couple since each religion has their own requirements as to what that means. For some, you have to be of the same religion. For some, you have to be of the same race. For some, you can't have ever been married before and walked away from it.And yet, if we hear of an interracial divorced couple where he's a Buddhist and she's a Jew claiming that they're "married," nobody bats an eye. We all know what that means.Therefore, it is clear that it is the religions who have abandoned the definition of "marriage," not the government. Therefore, it is the duty of the religions to come up with a new word or phrase to refer to their ritual.Hey! They already have: "Holy matrimony."That's settled, then. If you want to get "married," you go to the county clerk. If you want to be blessed in "holy matrimony," you go to church.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

subbie responds to me:

quote:

---

I hate to pick nits because you and I are of one mind on this issue, but it actually wouldn't be that difficult to implement a change from marriage to civil union, and even easier to grandfather previous marriages into the new statutory scheme.

---

And when the newly "civilly united" (heterosexual) couple tries to emigrate to a country that doesn't recognize "civil unions," what then? We should remove the United States from international reciprocities simply because some people have a problem with the word "marriage" being applied to Jane and June?And no, it's not that easy to rewrite terminology in the law. That's why the law is so anal about specific terms. And all it takes is some rogue group to pass a law about "marriage," and we're right back in court having to fight this battle all over again.The only sane solution is to do for sexual orientation what we did for race: Keep the entire structure in place and recognize that it applies to gay people as required by the Fourteenth Amendment.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

Huntard responds to me:

quote:

---

Any idea what the current text in the law syas regarding marriage?

---

Depends on where you live. In the United States, marriage is regulated by the states, not the federal government. Most states define it as only between mixed-sex couples while some have extended it to same-sex couples. There is a federal law, known as the "Defense of Marriage Act" or "DOMA" (defending it from people who want to get married, apparently), that says the federal government will not recognize same-sex marriage (for all sorts of legal issues from taxes to insurance to immigration rights to social security benefits...more than 1000 federal rights alone) and that other states do not need to recognize the same-sex marriages licensed by other states (in direct violation of the "Full Faith and Credit" clause of the Constitution).Recently, Texas passed an amendment to its constitution attempting to ban same-sex marriage...and in the process banned all marriage. The amendment reads: That's it. That second clause, however, means that marriage is illegal in Texas. Marriage is only between a man and a woman and is not recognized by the state.

quote:

---

There's absolutely no legal consequence, but I'm guessing the church will view them as "married", right?

---

Depends upon the church. Some churches who have...well, let's call it "issues" with the government won't really care. Others, who tend to be more mainstream and want to maintain their full influence with the government, will insist that the contract be made legal.Now, it doesn't always go the other way. Divorce is legal but the Catholic church doesn't recognize it. You have to get your marriage annuled (it's how Rudy Giuliani managed to get married a second time in the church...he had his marriage to his cousin annuled.)

quote:

---

Yep, that's the way it is here, except that a priest can't sign the document.

---

It's one of them "traditions" we have and there's no real issue with it here. Captains of ships have the ability to do it (my best friends were married by the captain of the ship as they had their wedding on a harbor cruise ship.) You can also go online and become appropriately bestowed the ability to marry people...many people want to have someone specific marry them and this allows them to do it.The paperwork still needs to be filed with the clerk (and you still need a witness to the wedding, which I was happy to sign for my friends), but the legal system is a little less strict about who gets to be the official signatories.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

Hyroglyphx responds to me:

quote:

---

Apparently it's you having thoughts of performing sexual acts with a minor if that's what you extracted from post!

---

Huh? You're the one who brings up children and it's someone else's fault? Nobody else mentioned children. That was you. Only you. Why did you think that in a discussion that compared people who are straight with people who are gay that the question of children would be anything but a non sequitur (note the spelling)?But if it wasn't a non sequitur, then you must have had some reason for thinking of children when the discussion was about straights and gays.So please explain to us all how a discussion regarding the sex of the participants has something to do with the age of said participants?And let's not be disingenuous and pretend that you were referring to the fact that this started with a 10-year-old boy not saying the pledge.

quote:

---

quote:

---

At any rate, it would behoove you to do some research on what the Supreme Court has ruled regarding the rights of children.

---

​

Would it now?

---

Yes, it would.Hint: Does your comment make any sense given the legal history of the courts concerning the rights of children?

quote:

---

There is a reason why I generally avoid conversing with you.

---

Indeed. I keep taking your comments seriously and respond to them as if you really meant to say them.

quote:

---

Your flair for the dramatic and outrageous assertions prevent you from having a decent conversation.

---

You're the one who brings up children and that's somehow my fault for calling you out on it?Let's try an experiment: Throughout this entire thread, don't mention anything about children, animals, polygamy, incest, or any other aspect of sexuality other than the comparison of gays and straights. Let's see if any "outrageous assertions" come along.You're the one who brought it up. If you didn't mean to bring it up, why did you say it?

quote:

---

Let me spell it out for you: I am FOR homosexual rights, Rrhain, as in, PRO homosexual rights.

---

But your posts indicate that you're not being exactly honest in that statement.Let's not play games.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

Hyroglyphx writes:

quote:

---

What I am saying is that the government should never have given the church power to legally marry people in the first place.

---

And this is the crux of your failure.They don't. The church doesn't have the legal power to marry you. That ceremony? The flowers? The candles? The incense? The breaking of the glass? The drinking of the wine? All that fuss and bother?None of it has anything to do with marriage.If you want to get married, you gotta go to the clerk. Now, the government has allowed certain members of the public such as priests, captains of ships, those who go online and pay the right fee, to act on the government's behalf, but it's still the government marrying you and the only reason these people are allowed to sign the paperwork is convenience. People like to have these ceremonies and it's just easier if the person doing it is allowed to sign the paper rather than forcing the couple to come back to the clerk's office to do it all again. But if you're not into the big display, the clerk will be happy to sign it when you're down at the courthouse filing your paperwork.The church does not have the power to legally marry people. Only the government does.

quote:

---

The government should never be able to decide who is married in the eyes of God.

---

This is the second part of your failure.The don't. Marriage has nothing to do with god. That's why atheists can get married.Marriage is a legal contract with the state, not god. Religions have decided to put up a ceremony and bless the couple in "holy matrimony," but none of that makes a couple "married."Only filing the appropriate paperwork with the county clerk will do it.

quote:

---

I just want the two separate the way it was intended.

---

Then clearly, since "marriage" is a civil contract, the only sane thing to do is to keep the entire legal framework that surrounds "marriage" and those religious groups who go into apoplexy over the thought of people with icky bits getting to file joint tax returns can come up with some new name for their religious ceremony.Hey! They already have: "Holy matrimony."So that's settled, then. Everybody already knows what "marriage" means. Nobody is confused when Jane and June say they are "married."

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

Hyroglyphx writes:

quote:

---

To them it's like you saying that rapists be allowed to rape whomever they want.

---

So now gay people are equivalent to rapists.And you wonder why you keep getting tagged as a bigot.Hint: It doesn't matter that you were putting it in the mouths of someone else. You don't speak for them and there is a fundamental difference between an act of rape and a loving gay couple that makes the entire argument nonsensical.Is there a reason you immediately jumped to rape?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

subbie writes:

quote:

---

Now, the Equal Protection analysis from Loving is not directly applicable to the question of gay marriage, because that involved a classification based on gender, not race, and the level of scrutiny is lower for gender-based classifications. Thus, we have to see how the analysis proceeds under intermediate scrutiny.

---

Um, you're forgetting about Lawrence v. Texas which put sexual orientation up there. You cannot discriminate against gay people simply on the basis of their sexual orientation.As Scalia pointed out, Lawrence v. Texas means that same-sex marriage is a constitutional requirement.There is a case working its way in the courts against DOMA. I will be interested to see how Scalia tries to weasel out of his own statement. We know he doesn't like Lawrence v. Texas (or the Constitution, for that matter), but he claims to respect stare decisis so let's see which of his hypocritical methods will be invoked.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

Hyroglyphx responds to Rahvin:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Immediately present precisely which legal right is being trampled by the government through state recognition of marriage (any marriage, gay or otherwise), or concede that no such right is infringed, and that argument was bullshit.

---

​

The First Amendment of the Constitution, but more specifically the Establishment Clause.

​

By forcing a religion via the government to go against its own governing laws and beliefs is prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

---

Right, and we certainly learned our lesson after the Loving v. Virginia decision, didn't we. I mean, all those priests were forced to marry interracial couples in complete violation of all their religious dogma. Don't you remember the great riot of '71 when 34 interracial couples stormed a church in Mobile and forced the priest there to marry them in front of the entire white congregation? I mean, the poor man's signature is so shaky on the licenses, you can tell he was scared god was going to strike him dead right there and then.Can you cite a single instance of a church being "forced to go against its own governing laws and beliefs" when the government started recognizing interracial marriage?Then what makes you think there would be a single instance of a church being "forced to go against its own governing laws and beliefs" when the government starts recognizing same-sex marriage?There are currently five states which recognize same-sex marriage. Has any church in any of those states been "forced to go against its own governing laws and beliefs" when the governments there started recognizing same-sex marriage?Be specific.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

subbie writes:

quote:

---

If gay marriage is legalized with the proviso that no church shall be compelled to perform any gay marriage

---

Um, we didn't do this with interracial marriage. Nobody passed laws saying, "But by this, no religious institution will be forced to engage in any practices outside their customs and traditions" when interracial marriage was legalized. The Loving v. Virginia decision makes no mention of it.Why the different treatment for gays? Why would any church anywhere be afraid of anything with regard to their behaviour if the state were to recognize same-sex marriage as required by the Fourteenth Amendment?If there was no threat from interracial marriage, why is everybody apoplectic over same-sex marriage?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

Hyroglyphx writes:

quote:

---

Yep, for things specifically in the Constitution and its adjoinging amemndments.

---

Said the person who seems to think that the Constitution is a laundry list and has completely forgotten that the Constitution specifically and directly states that you have rights that are not enumerated and yet are still protected by the Constitution and cannot be infringed.There is no "right" listed in the Constitution that says you are allowed to sleep in a bed. Do you really think a law could withstand scrutiny that prevented you from sleeping in a bed?According to the Constitution, you don't have a right to breathe. Do you really think the SCOTUS would accept a law that regulated your access to air?

quote:

---

But what Constitutional Amendment gives ANYONE the right to marry in the first place?

---

The Ninth.You have read the Constitution, haven't you?The SCOTUS recognized this right in the Loving v. Virginia case.For the umpteenth time: Do you think that case was wrongly decided?

quote:

---

Surely the Supreme Court would have shot it down if it was agreed upon that marriage is a basic Constitutional right.

---

It did. That's why the Loving v. Virginia case was unanimously decided as it was: Marriage is a fundamental right.

quote:

---

In fact, it is the opposite, as the federal DOMA law prevents homosexual marriage being federally recognized, regardless of the state.

---

Um, you do realize that the SCOTUS cannot strike down a law all on its own, yes? The only way it can do so is for a case to be brought before it where the litigants have standing. Up until recently, there were no same-sex marriages to be found in the United States and thus there were no challenges to DOMA as nobody had standing.But now, there is a case working its way through the courts and challenging DOMA.It will be interesting to see which hypocritical argument Scalia will use to deny his own statement in his opinion in Lawrence v. Texas that same-sex marriage is a constitutional right.

quote:

---

I would actually say that the 9th Amendment is more closely related to the fight for homosexual marriage because it is unenumerated

---

Ahem. If you knew this, then what on earth was the point of: If you knew that the right to marry was protected by the Ninth Amendment, why the faux attempt to proclaim intellectual curiosity and rationality?And you wonder why you keep getting tagged as a bigot.

quote:

---

That's exactly what we see today, States deciding for themselves, usually by a popular of vote by the People.

---

Oh, so when the Supreme Court overturned the will of more than 70% of the People by declaring interracial marriage to be a constitutional right, they were wrong to do so?For the umpteenth time: Do you think Loving v. Virginia was wrongly decided?

quote:

---

If it is as clear cut as you allege, surely the Supreme Court would have declared that by now, no?

---

No.The Loving v. Virginia case was not decided out of the blue. Note the name of one of the litigants: Virginia. The state of Virginia was being sued. The Loving couple (yes, that was their name) were residents of Virginia but got married in DC specifically to avoid the "Racial Integrity Act" then in place in Virginia that banned interracial marriage. When they went home, they were arrested.They were sentenced to one year in prison which would be suspended for 25 years if they would leave Virginia. The trial judge proclaimed: The case was taken through the courts and eventually the Supreme Court unanimously decided that the Virginia law was unconstitutional.The only way the SCOTUS could ever hear such a case is for somebody to bring the case before them. That means an interracial couple has to get married and then arrested and then convicted so that the case can enter the system and questions of constitutionality of the law can be examined. The SCOTUS can't simply decide that they want to investigate a law that has never actually been applied to anybody or caused anybody any trouble.So no, it is obvious to all but the most disingenuous observer that the SCOTUS wouldn't have had anything to say about DOMA. There hasn't been a case regarding it because there hasn't been any same-sex marriage until now.But as mentioned, there is now a case currently working its way through the court system and is sure to reach the SCOTUS. It will be interesting to see how Scalia weasels out of his own proclamation in Lawrence v. Texas that same-sex marriage is a fundamental right.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

subbie writes:

quote:

---

The Full Faith and Credit Clause does not apply to acts from other states that are against the public policy of the recognizing state.

---

Indeed, but the Fourteenth Amendment points out that not all public policy is constitutionally valid. That's why Loving v. Virginia worked: The Lovings were married in DC. The Virginia statute banned recognition of interracial marriage and criminalized those who would leave the state to be married in another state.Thus, the Loving v. Virginia decision forced Virginia to recognize the interracial marriage performed in DC.If the SCOTUS is going to have any consistency, then the combination of Loving v. Virginia and Lawrence v. Texas can only mean that same-sex marriage must be recognized across the country.Even Scalia knows this. It'll be interesting to see how he tries to weasel out of it.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

Hyroglyphx responds to subbie:

quote:

---

quote:

---

If gay marriage is legalized with the proviso that no church shall be compelled to perform any gay marriage, would you then agree that there is no discrimination?

---

​

Without question, yes. That's the only real crux.

---

Right, and we certainly learned our lesson after the Loving v. Virginia decision, didn't we. I mean, there wasn't a single mention of churches not having to marry interracial couples if their faiths and traditions didn't allow it and thus all those priests were forced to marry interracial couples in complete violation of all their religious dogma. Don't you remember the great riot of '71 when 34 interracial couples stormed a church in Mobile and forced the priest there to marry them in front of the entire white congregation? I mean, the poor man's signature is so shaky on the licenses, you can tell he was scared god was going to strike him dead right there and then.Can you cite a single instance of a church being "forced to go against its own governing laws and beliefs" when the government started recognizing interracial marriage?Then what makes you think there would be a single instance of a church being "forced to go against its own governing laws and beliefs" when the government starts recognizing same-sex marriage?There are currently five states which recognize same-sex marriage. Has any church in any of those states been "forced to go against its own governing laws and beliefs" when the governments there started recognizing same-sex marriage?If it's a crap argument when applied to race, why does it suddenly gain legitimacy when applied to sexual orientation?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.