exactly.  we need more socially engineering.  what's next, blacks and whites marrying each other?  

Most religions accept the marriage of someone outside their faith to someone inside as a way to convert. Sneaky and underhanded I know, but it's gotta be a man and a woman.

.GOV should just quit screwing around in the marriage sector all together.

It's a religious thing, and church and state are supposed to be separate.


If they are going to acknowledge 'marriage' as a social status, they should not discriminate who can be 'married'.

But it's OK for your to impose your religious views on the nation?

Yeah, it doesn't work that way.

If your church were required to marry gay couples, you'd have a case.  But that will not happen, and your argument is complete nonsense.

Ok. I was just giving you the answer as I understand it. The reality is that states do recognize marriages or each other state, but only to the degree that marriage would be recognized if performed in the recognizing state. This is how P&I works.

If, for example, you marry a woman in California (you being a man), your marriage licensed is recognized in Florida because Florida would also have issued that same license. If, however, you were to marry your sister in North Dakota (I realize no state allows this––this is a random choice) because North Dakota has passed a law allowing this, Florida would not recognize that marriage because, in Florida, any marriage involving at least that degree of incest is termed "void ab initio." That means that the marriage never occurred because it is void on its face. There is literally no mechanism in Florida courts to deal with void ab initio marriages except to deny standing.

Look at is like this: say you get a hunting permit in Alaska for elk hunting. You come to Florida demanding that Florida recognize that permit. Florida will not because we don't have an elk season. Further, it is well-established that states have the sole power to issue things like hunting licenses, professional licenses, CCW permits, marriage licenses, driver's licenses etc. pursuant to each state's police power. Each state has its own standards, so recognition only occurs where states either expressly agree to do so or where overlap of conditions and restrictions apply (ie: marriage, birth certificates).

P&I outside of equivalent terms of licensing (for limited categories) discussed above is restricted to basically judicial rulings.

If you forced the states to recognize all licensing, etc. of each other state, you would create an absolutely unworkable federal system. You would essentially see forum shopping for all kinds of things. For example, states aren't required to share traffic offense data. So say you live in Oregon, and your have had your DL revoked due to unpaid parking tickets. You go to Florida (who has no idea about your unpaid tickets, or Florida doesn't revoke DLs due to parking tickets), and you get a DL. Well Oregon doesn't have the power to revoke a Florida DL, so you get to drive around and Oregon's traffic law pertaining to DLs can be ignored. Does that sounds reasonable?

FYI: Florida statute and constitution define gay marriage as void ab initio. It is not recognized by any court in the state of Florida by will of the overwhelming majority of the electorate of the state. It is not protected in any way by the Florida Constitution and should not be a Federal Issue. So how would you propose forcing Florida to alter its constitution against the will of the people of Florida?

I've heard an argument that It is a "promote the general welfare" type issue and society can regulate marriage for that purpose.  Seems more vague than the other side's "equal rights protection",

Truly you cannot force people to believe SSM is the same or equal to the traditional and they like to say it's stealing the word that most distresses them.  We see a lot of posturing over the meaning of words and the innuendo of terms.  In the long run, if you don't like to be put in a box, you have to afford that same courtesy to others.

How do you explain California, which has repeatedly voted against Gay Marriage, including by amending their state constitution.





 

There are two thing I don't want in my bedroom the government and the church. Why either of those two entities is involved in marriage is beyond me. Like it or not if we truly want a smaller less oppressive government then that means we will have to tolerate behavior that we may or may not agree with.

I wasn't disagreeing with you, just adding to the discussion, using your comment as a launching point.

The gay marriage advocates are demanding that people who go to Massachusetts in order to get married, should have their marriage recognized in another state.

Meanwhile, anti-gay marriage activists are demanding a federal law - or even Constitutional Amendment - against it in any state.

Both really don't give two shits about the nuances of federalism - they want states to be able to force their will on others, over the types of traditional state issues that in other contexts they would insist be handled at the state level.

All I am saying is, I see nobody really approaching several of the big issues from the perspective of - "what should be handled where?"  Instead, they form their opinion first, then find legal arguments to suit it.

Crappy constitution and crappy judges. Just because federalism exists does not mean everyone will obey it. Goodness, just look at the commerce clause and how it's used.

Also, as I understand it, the California constitution has some sort of "amendment review" system built into that allows state courts to overturn constitutional amendments that violate certain "rights."

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams.

George Washington drums out a soldier over sodomy (gay sex).

“At a General Court Martial whereof Colo. Tupper was President (10th March 1778) Lieutt. [Frederick Gotthold] Enslin of Colo. Malcom's Regiment tried for attempting to commit sodomy, with John Monhort a soldier; Secondly, For Perjury in swearing to false Accounts, found guilty of the charges exhibited against him, being breaches of 5th. Article 18th. Section of the Articles of War and do sentence him to be dismiss'd the service with Infamy.

“His Excellency the Commander in Chief [George Washington] approves the sentence and with Abhorrence and Detestation of such Infamous Crimes orders Lieutt. Enslin to be drummed out of Camp tomorrow morning by all the Drummers and Fifers in the Army never to return; The Drummers and Fifers to attend on the Grand Parade at Guard mounting for that Purpose.”


Thomas Jefferson recommends castration for buggery (*gay sex).

Death might be inflicted for murther and perhaps for treason if you would take out of the description of treason all crimes which are not such in their nature. Rape, buggery &c. punish by castration. All other crimes by working on high roads, rivers, gallies &c. a certain time proportioned to the offence.

Now these founding fathers understood precisely that there is a sepration of church and state but that it doesn't mean that we have to engagein moral relativism.  They had no problem with punishing hhomosexuality as sin.  They saw no conflict with this and federalism.  Oh and 1 . 2 3 they had slaves too.  Boo hoo.  

Two words:  Activist judges


They face the same problem with illegal immigration.  Californians have tried multiple times to restrict illegals from receiving state provided services, and each time the activist judges over-rule the voters.

In the case of DL, I believe a state that licenses drivers at 17 must still respect the drivers license of a 16 year old from a neighboring state.

Agreed wholeheartedly. If we could just keep our federal system in tact and go back to a more pure form––people could just leave Florida and go to a state where gay marriage is recognized and make a life there. That's what people used to do when a state did something they disagreed with but were in the minority.

And, yeah, the whole US Constitution amendment push for this boggles my mind. I mean, I understand why they are doing it: they want to control people. But it's such a horrible precedent to set. Prohibition was just as stupid and for the same reason: you don't use the Federal Constitution to force morality on people. I don't like the idea of doing that at any level of government, but creating a Federal Amendment to do so will give some SCOTUS down the road all the rationalization they need to say that the Federal Government has the authority to regulate XYZ that today would be considered insane.

I would normally agree.  However, civil unions through the trickery of the judicial systems will guarantee gay marriage.  So unfortunately even though it is a good compromise in principle will be used as a bludgeon.  Quite unfortunate really.

This.  It is about gays wanting affirmation from the government for their lifestyle choice.  Homosexuality and sexual immorality (and amorality) have been the downfall of numerous civilizations and it will be the downfall of the US as well.  I hope there are enough good people to pick up the pieces when it is over.

ETA - the poll suck - there appears to be only one option, the one the OP wanrts.

No––they do by tradition and compact, but there is no law or constitutional principle requiring them to do so.

Horseshit.  No society ever fell becuase of homosexuality or sexual immorality.  That's Victorian nonsense, completely unsupported by actual facts.  The fall of the Roman empire had to do with actual political decay, not becuase guys were fucking each other.  They'sd been doing that for centuries, including at the very height of power of teh Empire, and before.

Are you implying that the difference between a black and a white person are as profound as the difference between a male and female???
 

Are you implying that you don't see the parallels between the rhetoric against "miscegenation" and what we often here today on the gay marriage issue?

The difference is that there is a Constitutional Amendment specifically designed to remove that kind of segregation power from the states as well as multiple Acts passed by Congress to apply that amendment. The reality is that without the 14th Amendment, states had the authority to segregate based on race when it came to marriage. Without a 14th Amendment for gay people, states retain that authority wrt gay people. However, of course, one day the Court will rule that the 14th applies to this issue, as well, and homosexual marriage will be protected by fiat.

Excellent point.

Excellent analysis.

That's very vague.



You need to be more specific in what you're paralleling "micegenation" with.
 

In the case of Prop 8 the gov didn't. The People of the State of Ca. did and many other States did the same with Constitutional Amendments. You object to a gov of the people by the people for the people? why? Or do you prefer leftwing judicial activism or a King at the top to dictate to the people at the bottom. That's odd.

Yep. poorly worded question.

Gay marriage, of course.

Obviously, nobody is going around saying it will produce gay kids, but the actual "moral" debate about whether society should allow such people to marry has a lot of similar overtones.

word

Of course they do. Same thing with polygamy, incestuous and age-of-consent laws and any other laws regarding marriage.



So should we abandon ALL limits on gov't-sanctioned marriage for the sake of protecting the "equal-rights" of whomever that limit or definition of marriage leaves out?



That's an absurdity. It'd be like saying let's have NO laws governing the possession of guns by ANYONE. I think there are people here who  would agree with that too (probably the same who think we should abandon all limits on marriage too).
 

I think it is hyperbole to go from a discussion on same sex marriage to abandoning "all limits on marriage."

The same "it's the downfall of society, the ned of the world, against God's will" rhetoric many people have heard before.

The hyperbole started when a discussion of gay marriage went off the rails into a comparison to interracial marriage and micegenation.
Maintaining the definition of a legal-recognized marriage as being between one man and one woman will not cause gays to die or society to fall no matter what the hysterical comparators to interracial marriage want others to think.
ETA: But I get the impression you're NOT for abandoning all laws regarding marriage. Okay then, if that's true, then the discussion now returns to where I started before it was derailed - namely the people deciding for themselves what laws there should be and what THEY want to define and sanction as "marriage".
 

There is no argument, those are my believes.