Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bush Says He Could Support Ban On Gay Marriage
AP ^ | 12/16/03

Posted on 12/16/2003 5:11:13 PM PST by 11th Earl of Mar

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-77 last
To: Akira
I just don't buy that. There's nothing that says a marriage constituted in Mass. has to be recognized in Texas, is there?

LOL, ignorance is truly bliss. There is a method to this madness and the method is the "full faith and credit" clause of the constitution which will be held to apply by 5 SCOTUS justices. Wake up.

61 posted on 12/17/2003 7:42:24 AM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Polybius
So if you are an employer in Iowa and you have 10 employees who are homosexual, you would have no problem being forced to pay for the health insurance for their lovers?
62 posted on 12/17/2003 7:45:51 AM PST by 11th Earl of Mar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: 11th Earl of Mar
Why should we let five Massachusetts judges make it law in their state, thus Constitutionally requiring the other 49 states to recognize it?

What Massachusetts decides to allow or disallow has no Constitutional bearing on any other state.

Congress and 37 states' legislatures already have passed laws intended to block recognition of other states' approval of same-sex marriages. Short of militarily conquering the United States Government and other states with the Massachusetts Highway Patrol, Massachusetts can not force any other state to recognize the legal validity of a Massachusetts same-sex marriage.

63 posted on 12/17/2003 7:45:51 AM PST by Polybius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Polybius
Short of militarily conquering the United States Government and other states with the Massachusetts Highway Patrol, Massachusetts can not force any other state to recognize the legal validity of a Massachusetts same-sex marriage.

I'm simply puzzled you would post this less than a week after the USSC ran roughshod over the first amendment. The USSC will do what it wants; the full faith and credit clause will be the vehicle.

64 posted on 12/17/2003 7:56:19 AM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: 11th Earl of Mar; Akira; boop
Please tell me which one of the 50 states have a law that says that they do not recognize marriages from other states? For instance, in one is married in Illinois, then moves to Florida, that couple in Florida is entitled to all the benefits of marriage that every other married couple enjoys.

Only if that union meets the new state's legal defintion of marriage. For same-sex marriages, that is not the case:

STATES THAT PREVENT RECOGNITION OF OUT-OF-STATE SAME-SEX MARRIAGE LICENSE

As you can see, they include both Florida and Illinois.

In the South, the standard reply to the argument that (fill in the black) was legal in Massachusetts is:

"Well, you're not in Massachusetts anymore, boy, and it ain't legal here!"

65 posted on 12/17/2003 8:04:28 AM PST by Polybius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
I'm simply puzzled you would post this less than a week after the USSC ran roughshod over the first amendment. The USSC will do what it wants; the full faith and credit clause will be the vehicle.

Precisely.

The power rests with SCOTUS.

The Supreme Court of Massachusetts is as irrelevant to the final outcome of this issue as the Supreme Court of Florida was to the final outcome of the 2000 Presidential election.

66 posted on 12/17/2003 8:09:50 AM PST by Polybius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: 11th Earl of Mar
So if you are an employer in Iowa and you have 10 employees who are homosexual, you would have no problem being forced to pay for the health insurance for their lovers?

As I documented in Post 65, I would not have that particular problem in Iowa because Iowa is one of the 37 states that specifically bans the recognition of out-state same-sex marriages.

STATES THAT PREVENT RECOGNITION OF OUT-OF-STATE SAME-SEX MARRIAGE LICENSE

If I lived in Massachusetts, I would have that particular problem. However, I would blame nobody but myself for being stupid enough to want to live in such a state.

I currently live in Washington State. Liberal as it is, Washington State is one of those states that specifically bans the recognition of out-state same-sex marriages.

67 posted on 12/17/2003 8:21:26 AM PST by Polybius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Polybius
All right. I missed your point. Sorry.
68 posted on 12/17/2003 8:31:29 AM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Polybius
The Supreme Court of Massachusetts is as irrelevant to the final outcome of this issue as the Supreme Court of Florida was to the final outcome of the 2000 Presidential election.

Certainly not, the SJC of Mass cited Lawrence v Texas in their opinion.

That is the first step, the second step is the "full faith and credit" clause. There are at least 5 votes to uphold that as regards the Mass SJC opinion. Absent the Mass SJC decision the case would never come before the SCOTUS. DOMA is irrelevant to a SCOTUS that cites European precedent to impose mores on America.

69 posted on 12/17/2003 11:00:56 AM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: MatthewMarkLukeJohn
I thought that America celebrated diversity.

Here's your first mistake. One of our mottos is "E Pluribus Unum". "Out of many, one" We don't celebrate diversity. We celebrate union with our founding fathers ideals. Great melting pot and all that.

There are people who live in America who aren't christians, and who don't have a problem with gay marriage.

And some of them have been actively trying to destroy my way of life and make it all but illegal to be a Christian. If they can work against me why can't I work against them?

We don't all have the same beliefs and the same religion. That's freedom.

They are free to hold to whatever religious beliefs they want (within the bounds of the constitution) even if they are wrong. But they had better hold to the beliefs enshrined in our founding documents and the writings of our founding fathers.

Could anyone explain to me why someone else being gay, or being in a gay marriage, would actually hurt them?

You don't read much do you? Let me point you to a list of links that documents this in an overwhelming level of detail. The list is sorted by topic so you can read only the applicable links.

Homosexual Agenda: Categorical Index of Links

I'd recommend reading the health hazard, marriage and child abuse sections.

This issue really brings the bigots out of the woodwork!

"Bigot: One fanatically devoted to one's own group, race, religion, or politics, and intolerant of those who differ." (Websters II)

Yep that's me. And proud of it too. When you are right, you should stand up for what you believe in. That's the spirit that this country was founded in.

BTW welcome to FreeRepublic. Stick around and learn.

70 posted on 12/17/2003 11:01:46 AM PST by John O (God Save America (Please))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
Ahhh, but there's nothing quite as blissful as being able to bask in the arrogance and condescension of the smug FReeper. Thanks for providing me my fix for this week.
71 posted on 12/17/2003 1:36:44 PM PST by Akira (Blessed are the cheesemakers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Polybius
Thanks for the link and list.
72 posted on 12/17/2003 1:39:25 PM PST by Akira (Blessed are the cheesemakers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
That is the first step, the second step is the "full faith and credit" clause.

The third step is the second half of Article IV, Section 1 :

"And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof."

Key words: Congress. General Laws (as in DOMA).

73 posted on 12/17/2003 6:08:26 PM PST by Polybius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Polybius
How you can have faith in this court to abide the constitution is incomprehensible to me.
74 posted on 12/17/2003 8:06:15 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Akira
Ahhh, but there's nothing quite as blissful as being able to bask in the arrogance and condescension of the smug FReeper. Thanks for providing me my fix for this week.

You mistake smugness and condescension for amusement. In any case, perhaps you woke up.

75 posted on 12/17/2003 8:09:52 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: MatthewMarkLukeJohn
And you are registered on FR because you are conservative in what way? (This post supporting the gay agenda being your one and only contribution to this forum...)
76 posted on 12/18/2003 1:08:13 AM PST by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
How you can have faith in this court to abide the constitution is incomprehensible to me.

If, if, SCOTUS ignores the second half of Article IV, Section 1, then it would be the time to sully the Constitution of the United States with the tawdry subject of same-sex marriages.

Until such time, I would prefer that the venerable U.S. Constitution not even go there.

77 posted on 12/18/2003 8:22:06 AM PST by Polybius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-77 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson