Gays should come out on Valentine's Day

The Detroit News ^ | January 19, 2004 | Deb Price

[presidio9]

Call me old-fashioned, but the best romantic love lasts years longer than it takes to eat a box of chocolates. And keeping it strong is often difficult, emotionally challenging work.

That

[GigaDittos]

No, President C L I N T O N signed a law that says no state can force another state to accepted gay marriages. Read Bush's State of the Union speech.

[beelzepug]

"The Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution requires states to recognize each others' laws..."

So, why is my right to carry a concealed weapon (WA state) not recognized by all the other states?

[finnman69]

Waiter: (to Deb) Sometimes, when nobody's looking, I pick my nose and eat the booger. Can I bring you something to drink?

ROFLMAO

Percect example of too much information and why it's good to keep certain thgns to yourself.

[GigaDittos]

THE MARRIAGE PROTECTION ACT
U.S. REP. JOHN HOSTETTLER


WHAT IT DOES
· The Marriage Protection Act removes jurisdiction from certain federal courts over questions pertaining to the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

· The Marriage Protection Act will remove the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction, as well as remove inferior federal court original and appellate jurisdiction over DOMA’s full faith and credit provision. This provision in DOMA codified that no State would be required to give full faith and credit to a marriage license issued by another State, if that relationship was between two people of the same sex.

· The Marriage Protection Act also removes appellate jurisdiction from the Supreme Court and the inferior federal courts over DOMA’s marriage definition provision, which defines the terms “marriage” and “spouse,” for purposes of federal law as terms only applying to relationships between people of the opposite sex.


WHAT IT MEANS
· This bill preserves each State’s traditional right to determine its own marriage policies by preventing the federal courts from interfering with DOMA’s full faith & credit provision (consistent with the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution).

· Under the Marriage Protection Act, any question pertaining to the interpretation of DOMA’s full faith & credit provision would be left to State courts and legislatures, where marriage law jurisdiction has traditionally resided (consistent with Article IV, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution).

· Under the Marriage Protection Act, any question pertaining to the interpretation of DOMA’s marriage definition provision could reach no higher than federal district court.

· Federal judges and Supreme Court Justices are not the elected representatives of the people, and the Marriage Protection Act will prevent federal courts from overstepping their duties and legislating from the bench regarding marriage policy.

· Congress has a constitutional duty and authority to put a check on the Judicial branch. In light of recent federal court decisions that do not respect traditional areas of law reserved for the states, the federal courts could be only one decision away from creating a “right” to homosexual marriage (consistent with Article I, Section 8, and Article III, Sections 1 & 2 of the U.S. Constitution).

Thomas Jefferson, 1820: In addition to refusing to seat Mr. Marbury, Jefferson clarified his rejection of the doctrine of judicial supremacy when he wrote: “[T]o consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps...[A]nd their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The constitution has erected no such single tribunal.”

LET'S HOPE FOR THIS LAW.

[Modernman]

Those look like Maine Coons. Are they?

[N3WBI3]

Too sick to say anything about it, they defame Fathers day and now Valentines day? they do not want hetero sexuals to accept them they want to userp the heterosexual history..

[MotleyGirl70]

Not sure. I got those two cuties off of Google. The one in front cracks me up because it looks like he's laughing. I use him often on FR. Plus his ears are flapped down which is a hoot. Soooooo cute.

[GigaDittos]

Are you for real? IF that is your true attitude, that I must CELEBRATE your lifestyle, THEN I wish you all the HIV necessary to kill your body and let the Lord have mercy upon your soul. I don't have to give up all my rights for your pursuit of happiness. If I do, then you can give up your life.

[MotleyGirl70]

Read post #27. It was meant as a parody.

[Modernman]

So, why is my right to carry a concealed weapon (WA state) not recognized by all the other states?

I was probably being too general in my earlier post. When it comes to the FFCC, States generally have an obligation to enforce money judgments awarded in other states, and abide by other judicial decrees issued by other states (such as divorce decrees). But states can generally set their own rules as to what people can do in the state -- they can control who can drive, who can practice law, who can practice medicine, who can engage in other businesses, who can carry a gun, who (if anyone) can buy alcohol, and so on. That's part of the state's sovereign power.

So as a result, states need not honor all sorts of licenses issued by other states. In practice, there's a good deal of "comity" -- voluntary accommodation of other states' decisions. I believe that this is why states honor out-of-state driver's licenses; they don't have a constitutional obligation to do this, but they do, for good pragmatic reasons. But as a general matter, one state may not export its gun carry licensing policy to other states unless the other states acquiesce. If it were otherwise, then no state could prohibit, say, gambling, prostitution, and such; after all, California would have to respect Nevadan licenses to gamble and to be a prostitute.

[AbsoluteJustice]

Negative. A bill passed by Bill Clinton in 1996 states that marriage is defined as betwenn a man and a woman and states laws do not supercede Federal laws

[Modernman]

Under the Marriage Protection Act, any question pertaining to the interpretation of DOMA’s full faith & credit provision would be left to State courts and legislatures, where marriage law jurisdiction has traditionally resided

And that doesn't really get us anywhere. The vast majority of state judges, looking at current law on this topic, will decide (and rightfully so) that FFC requires the states to recognize out of state gay marriages.

This is a legal dead end. We need a constitutional amendment, IMHO.

[truthandjustice1]

"Come out as gay or gay friendly"

Come out as gay and butt ugly.

[Modernman]

Negative. A bill passed by Bill Clinton in 1996 states that marriage is defined as betwenn a man and a woman and states laws do not supercede Federal laws

The problem with that is, it's difficult to see where the Federal power to regulate marriages comes from. Marriage has historically been exclusively a power left to the States.

[Billthedrill]

Your post has given me the courage to come out of the closet - right here on FR! Right now!

Me and the rubber galoshes and the doorknob and the underage members of different zoological phyla aren't just platonic friends! We're here, we're weird, and we're IN YOUR FACE!!

What do you mean, your post was a parody?

[truthandjustice1]

"I don't care if we have to completely destroy any semblance of societal decorum and custom! I don't want you just minding your own business as if me and my love life are no concern of yours. Nothing else matters but me and my partner and having our lifestyle be the central focus of YOUR life. It is not enough for my partner and I to just share our love with each other. It must be shared with you! And you MUST acknowledge it! Or else you are a narrow-minded, bigoted, hater!"

Good one, I didn't see the sarcasm switch though. You really had me going!

[miele man]

What a REAL surprise to learn she is the daughter of an Episcopal priest. /sarcasm

[AbsoluteJustice]

Agreed but when it comes to interstate travel and the recognizing of laws across states that is a federal issue and if the feds defined marriage as between a man and a woman and one state does not recognize it then by law it will not be recognized 1)Federally and 2)within the state.

I guess once it hit inter-states that is when the feds have jurisdiction. So to simplify things they made the law in 1996.

[talleyman]

What do you mean, your post was a parody?

That's all they're asking for: parody. /pun
Why can't we all just get along? /sarcasm

[Modernman]

Agreed but when it comes to interstate travel and the recognizing of laws across states that is a federal issue

If that was true, then the Mass. Supreme Court decision wouldn't be such a big deal. If this law did what it claims to do, then either 1) a state couldn't allow for gay marriage or 2) a gay marriage in Mass. wouldn't be recognized in any other state.

The fact that everyone considers the Mass. decision to be so dangerous suggests that conservative legal scholars don't have much faith in the 1996 law.