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?

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.

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

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: onceburned
Despite U.S. troops being committed to hostile actions many times since 1973, war has never been declared.

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."

quote:

ORIGINAL: SirKenin
You are not, however, sending your troops into battle without the Senate saying so.

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)

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:

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.

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.

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.

quote:

Second, the case has already been presented to the USSC. The homosexual agenda lost badly.

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.

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.

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.

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.