RE: Proposed Constititional Amendment to ban gay marriage

RE: Proposed Constititional Amendment to ban gay marriage (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

ginger21 -> RE: Proposed Constititional Amendment to ban gay marriage (6/14/2005 4:18:36 PM)
Has anyone considered the full faith and credit clause of the constitution? From what I understood, it would only take one state legalizing gay marriage to make it legal throughout the entire US. Hasn't Massachusetts (or some state in New england) already done so? How can other states legally refuse to recognize a marriage, when the contstitution says they must? Especially since the US Supreme Court, with its ruling on medicinal marijuana, upheld the supremecy of federal law over state. Is it gonna take an actually case getting to the Supreme Court for an answer to finally be given?

SirKenin -> RE: Proposed Constititional Amendment to ban gay marriage (6/14/2005 4:28:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ginger21 Has anyone considered the full faith and credit clause of the constitution? From what I understood, it would only take one state legalizing gay marriage to make it legal throughout the entire US. Hasn't Massachusetts (or some state in New england) already done so? How can other states legally refuse to recognize a marriage, when the contstitution says they must? Especially since the US Supreme Court, with its ruling on medicinal marijuana, upheld the supremecy of federal law over state. Is it gonna take an actually case getting to the Supreme Court for an answer to finally be given? First, no state is required to recognize ANY marriage of another state or country to the best of My knowledge. Technically you can be asked to get remarried if you relocate for a job. Second, the case has already been presented to the USSC. The homosexual agenda lost badly. Their butts were handed to them on a platter as they were unceremoniously shoved out the Courts doors. It was established that homosexuals have no rights to marry under any Amendment of the Constitution, including the 1st, 9th and 14th IIRC. That is why they have not taken it back to the USSC, because they know they will get hammered again. Instead they have adopted a new tactic and have taken it from state to state where they stand better odds. However, if this Amendment passes, all those marriages and state rulings will be voided. I doubt it will. This bill has been brought before and did not make it.

Ssilver -> RE: Proposed Constititional Amendment to ban gay marriage (6/14/2005 4:55:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SirKenin Here... Learn how the Senate and Congress works, and their role in declaring war, so that you do not look so foolish on the next round. http://teacher.scholastic.com/researchtools/articlearchives/civics/usgovt/legis/histosen.htm quote: Senate concern over increased presidential powers in foreign affairs led to the passage of the War Powers Act of 1973, requiring Congressional notification and approval whenever American troops are sent into combat. Holy damn. I mean... Really. You might not be aware that there was in fact no declaration of war. Hasn't been one since WWII. The idea that the Senate and not the White House was the driving force behind the Iraq invasion is the ludicrous assertion I'm laughing at, not at the procedural issues...

LadyAngelika -> RE: Proposed Constititional Amendment to ban gay marriage (6/14/2005 6:28:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: fillepink i'm amazed at the apparent apathy to this issue...especially from gay and lesbian people. did i post this thread in the wrong place? fillepink I'm not surprised. I did queer rights activism for 5 years here in Montreal. Many people have very little faith that anything will change in their lifetime. Well it has here in Canada. Same-sex marriages are now legal. - LA

LadyAngelika -> RE: Proposed Constititional Amendment to ban gay marriage (6/14/2005 6:37:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster Do they have a doctrine of separation (that's SEPARATION, not "seperation") of Church and State in Canada? I honestly don't know. So maybe in Canada it really is crap. In the U.S., it's not crap. Lam quote: ORIGINAL: SirKenin Third, this seperation of Church and State crap is nothing more than that. Crap. the other same-sex marriage thread I don't know if we have a doctrine. I know we have had many movements and though it is slow, it is happening especially in the more progressive areas of Canada. For example, a few years ago, all schools in the province of Quebec became non-denomenational. That is but one small example. There was never one big step but lots of small battles. I did post in the other same-sex marriage thread that: "I have to commend ex-Prime Minister of Canada Jean Chrétien. When approach by Jean-Paul II (may he rest in peace) to use his catholic conscience and not allow same-sex marriage in Canada, Chrétien's response was that not all Canadians was catholic and that he represented all Canadians and therefore had to do what was in the best interest of all Canadians. He stated that legalizing same-sex marriage, though it was not what his Catholic faith prescribed, was what his duty for upholding human rights and equity prescribed. He stated that if the Catholic Church didn't want to bless a same-sex union, that this was their prerogative. But that the Canadian courts would." I believe this is a bold statement on the ex-Prime Minister's part about how our country could not be lead by a religious doctrine. - LA

onceburned -> RE: Proposed Constititional Amendment to ban gay marriage (6/14/2005 6:38:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ginger21 Has anyone considered the full faith and credit clause of the constitution? From what I understood, it would only take one state legalizing gay marriage to make it legal throughout the entire US. Hasn't Massachusetts (or some state in New england) already done so? I believe that concern is what has prompted the flurry of amendment to state consitutions which define marriage as between one man and one woman. In addition, Defense of Marriage Acts (DOMAs) are in place in most states, and even on a federal level. quote: The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is a federal law permitting states to refuse recognition to same-sex marriages. Earlier this year, in Wilson v. Ake, a federal district court in Florida upheld both DOMA, and the Florida law giving effect to it, as constitutional. In that case, a lesbian couple had married in Massachusetts and then sought recognition of their union in Florida. The court upheld Florida's right to ignore their union. No other federal court has ruled on the questions of interstate recognition arising from Massachusetts same-sex marriages. http://writ.news.findlaw.com/grossman/20050517.html But activists opposed to gay marriage are concerned that they will lose in court eventually. Hence the push for the U.S. constitutional amendment.

onceburned -> RE: Proposed Constititional Amendment to ban gay marriage (6/14/2005 6:45:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SirKenin Bush HAD to get senate approval before going to war. That is the way it works ever since the Senate's inception in 1787, but most notibly since 1973 (spawned by concerns over the President's power to interject in foreign affairs. Yes, the inteent of the War Powers Act was to limit the power of the President to commit troops to battle, but it has been of little effect. quote: Indeed, in the Kosovo conflict, Congress did not even formally authorize the use of military force. Although the Senate passed a resolution authorizing air attacks, that resolution failed in the House of Representatives. But just over a week later, the House passed a bill funding the war anyway. The Congressional Dilemma and Response Congress's somewhat inconsistent actions in the Kosovo conflict illustrate the difficulty it often faces when the President uses military force. Even if Congress would be inclined against military action, once troops are in the field under enemy fire, Congress can only block such action at the cost of endangering those troops and potentially undermining the national interest. Yet Congress is virtually powerless to prevent the President from using military force in the first place. http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20020306.html Despite U.S. troops being committed to hostile actions many times since 1973, war has never been declared.

LadyAngelika -> RE: Proposed Constititional Amendment to ban gay marriage (6/14/2005 6:51:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: onceburned Despite U.S. troops being committed to hostile actions many times since 1973, war has never been declared. Yes, and for the record, most of us Canadians know this. - LA

SirKenin -> RE: Proposed Constititional Amendment to ban gay marriage (6/14/2005 8:00:33 PM)
I did not mean to say that you had to declare "WAR!!!!" in order to send your troops into battle. You are not, however, sending your troops into battle without the Senate saying so. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/03/attack/main524191.shtml quote: (CBS) Both the House and the Senate have now voted to authorize war-making powers for President Bush, who heralded the chamber's vote as a resounding message to United Nations and to the world that "the gathering threat of Iraq must be confronted fully and finally."

onceburned -> RE: Proposed Constititional Amendment to ban gay marriage (6/14/2005 8:39:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SirKenin You are not, however, sending your troops into battle without the Senate saying so. But the War Powers Act does not stop a President from deploying troops into combat: quote: On May 25, 1999, the 60th day had passed since the President notified Congress of his actions regarding U.S. participation in military operations in Kosovo. Representative Campbell, and those who joined his suit, noted to the Federal Court that this was a clear violation of the language of the War Powers Resolution stipulating a withdrawal of U.S. forces from the area of hostilities occur after 60 days in the absence of congressional authorization to continue, or a presidential request to Congress for an extra 30 day period to safely withdraw. <> The President did not seek such a 30-day extension, noting instead that the War Powers Resolution is constitutionally defective. On June 8, 1999, Federal District Judge Paul L. Friedman dismissed the suit of Representative Campbell and others that sought to have the court rule that President Clinton was in violation of the War Powers Resolution and the Constitution by conducting military activities in Yugoslavia without having received prior authorization from Congress. <snip> On October 2, 2000, the United States Supreme Court, without comment, refused to hear the appeal of Representative Campbell thereby letting stand the holding of the U.S. Court of Appeals. (Campbell v. Clinton, cert. denied, 531U.S. 815 Oct. 2, 2000) http://www.fas.org/man/crs/IB81050.html

SirKenin -> RE: Proposed Constititional Amendment to ban gay marriage (6/14/2005 9:24:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: onceburned quote: ORIGINAL: SirKenin You are not, however, sending your troops into battle without the Senate saying so. But the War Powers Act does not stop a President from deploying troops into combat: Your quote is speaking about withdrawal of the troops after they are already there. Clinton did not send the troops into battle without Congressional approval. He did not withdraw them as per the Act. Big difference from what I am trying to say. It was not an autocratic decision on the President's part to send the USA into war with Iraq. It was very clearly sanctioned by the House and the Senate. In fact, the House voted AGAINST the withdrawal of troops from Iraq. Soooo. Ssilver lipping off about an Executive Branch mandate is clearly false. It does not matter what Bush wanted. He went to the Senate and the House to get the approval just like he was supposed to. A textbook example of how the system works.

Ssilver -> RE: Proposed Constititional Amendment to ban gay marriage (6/14/2005 9:58:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SirKenin It was not an autocratic decision on the President's part to send the USA into war with Iraq. It was very clearly sanctioned by the House and the Senate. That's true. That wasn't what you said before, however: The senate holds the reigns of power. The senate tells the President what he will or will not be doing. There was no more stark example of this than the recent Iraqi war. Yeah, Iraq was a clear cut case of the Senate telling the President exactly what he could do. God knows Bush really had no desire to invade, until the Senate twisted his arm.

Lordandmaster -> RE: Proposed Constititional Amendment to ban gay marriage (6/14/2005 10:44:52 PM)
(He means this sarcastically, boys and girls.) quote: ORIGINAL: Ssilver Yeah, Iraq was a clear cut case of the Senate telling the President exactly what he could do. God knows Bush really had no desire to invade, until the Senate twisted his arm.

onceburned -> RE: Proposed Constititional Amendment to ban gay marriage (6/14/2005 11:22:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SirKenin Your quote is speaking about withdrawal of the troops after they are already there. Clinton did not send the troops into battle without Congressional approval. He did not withdraw them as per the Act. Big difference from what I am trying to say. That isn't how I read it. It sounded like he called airstrikes, sent troops and never got the congressional okay. After 60 days of intervention, if Congress has not okayed the deployment, the War Powers Act requires the troops be withdrawn. But the courts didn't back Congress on enforcing it.

ginger21 -> RE: Proposed Constititional Amendment to ban gay marriage (6/15/2005 12:56:31 AM)
quote: Second, the case has already been presented to the USSC. The homosexual agenda lost badly. The only issue regarding homosexuality I know of that was brought before the Supreme Court is that regarding discrimnatory sodomy laws. And they won.

SirKenin -> RE: Proposed Constititional Amendment to ban gay marriage (6/15/2005 6:06:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: onceburned quote: ORIGINAL: SirKenin Your quote is speaking about withdrawal of the troops after they are already there. Clinton did not send the troops into battle without Congressional approval. He did not withdraw them as per the Act. Big difference from what I am trying to say. That isn't how I read it. It sounded like he called airstrikes, sent troops and never got the congressional okay. After 60 days of intervention, if Congress has not okayed the deployment, the War Powers Act requires the troops be withdrawn. But the courts didn't back Congress on enforcing it. Ahhh. I read it differently than you did evidently. [:)]

SirKenin -> RE: Proposed Constititional Amendment to ban gay marriage (6/15/2005 6:18:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ginger21 quote: Second, the case has already been presented to the USSC. The homosexual agenda lost badly. The only issue regarding homosexuality I know of that was brought before the Supreme Court is that regarding discrimnatory sodomy laws. And they won. I know they won Lawrence v. Texas, but I could swear there was another one in regards to whether homosexual marriage is a right. I can not find it right now. We had this discussion in another forum and this was presented. When I find it I will post back here. edit: I can not find it. Where is dittomonkey when You need him? That guy could find anything when it came to legal briefs. He is the one on the other forum that presented it the first time. Oh well.

SirKenin -> RE: Proposed Constititional Amendment to ban gay marriage (6/15/2005 6:20:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ssilver Yeah, Iraq was a clear cut case of the Senate telling the President exactly what he could do. God knows Bush really had no desire to invade, until the Senate twisted his arm. And that is not what I said either. I said that whether or not Bush wanted to go to war was immaterial. What mattered was whether or not the Senate let him. Of course Bush petitioned the Senate to allow him to invade. Duh. That is a no brainer.

fillepink -> RE: Proposed Constititional Amendment to ban gay marriage (6/16/2005 1:42:23 PM)
i guess people are entitled to post whatever they wish, but i am amazed by the "banter" which seems to go on between some members over spelling or archania of the U S Constitution. Doesn't A/anyone care about the possibility of living under a constitution that has an amendment drastically abridging the rights of people who are not straight? what causes people to ignore this issue? there's so much "fiddling while Rome burns". if you take issue with how the wars in afganistan or irag were commenced on constitutional grounds, by all means, start a thread. meantime, this thread was meant to educate and urge people to take action on behalf of gay people. i don't understand why that so easily got lost. fillepink [image]local://upfiles/72910/85B87C68FFCB49F9B28BC9E3B37FA8A1.jpg[/image]

Lordandmaster -> RE: Proposed Constititional Amendment to ban gay marriage (6/16/2005 2:19:38 PM)
Well, I agree that there has been a ton of fiddling while Rome burns, but I don't think the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and especially how the Constitution was subverted in order to prosecute them, are any less important than a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. I think they're all crucially important. I was never very political until the Bush II reign. I really believe we are living in one of the most important times in American history. Lam quote: ORIGINAL: fillepink what causes people to ignore this issue? there's so much "fiddling while Rome burns". if you take issue with how the wars in afganistan or irag were commenced on constitutional grounds, by all means, start a thread. meantime, this thread was meant to educate and urge people to take action on behalf of gay people. i don't understand why that so easily got lost.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125