gay-lesbian marriages (if you can stand another rant...)

[radfringe]

Santorum seems to spinning the "debate" over a amendment that if you "legalize" gay-lesbian marriages in one state and leave the decision up to individiual states then you will have a patchwork of "marriage laws" ... and this would lead to confusion. A constitutional amendment would standardize "marriage laws" across the nation...

assume this is true for a moment...

many states differ on laws such as seatbelts, some states require them, others don't, some states have helmet laws for motorcyles, others don't --- this is confusing to people driving on the road -- should we have a constitutional amendment to standardize driving laws?

many states differ on gun-control laws, although all states are required to follow federal statutes, there are other areas regarding gun laws that differ from state to state. this is confusing to people who own guns or want to own guns -- should we have a constitutional amendment to standardize gun laws?

state and local taxes, income/property/school/sales etc., vary from state to state. This is confusing for residents of one state who may move to another state. Should we have a constitutional amendment to standardize all local/state taxes?

if confusion will follow from different laws or just plain variations of laws from state to state --- then we should have constitional amendment to standardize ALL laws?

----

second point -- one of the arguments I hear alot is that gay-lesbian marriage is against the Bible.

ummmm....what if you don't believe or follow the Bible? Are you still required to adhere to that doctrine? just asking.....

[tobius]

1. that is the current debate between sullivan and frum at the

national review. here is a sample of the examples frum gives--

"...4) A Massachusetts woman marries another Massachusetts woman. The relationship sours. Without obtaining a divorce, she moves to Texas and marries a man. Has she committed bigamy?

2) Two Massachusetts women marry. One of them becomes pregnant. The couple split up, and the woman who bore the child moves to Connecticut. The other woman sues for visitation rights. What should the Connecticut courts do?....."
again this link is to national review- http://www.nationalreview.com/frum/diary022704.asp#026007

andrew sullivan as you know has been a strong proponent of gay marriage for a long time, and he does see the mess that can be created. caution links to andy-- http://www.andrewsullivan.com/index.php?dish_inc=archives/2004_02_29_dish_archive.html#107811962096565003

It's not the same as a seat belt law, when you cross state lines you have to put on your seatbelt. (or not depending on state)

[slinkerwink]

2. those two questions should be answered by taking heterosexual

judicial precedents into consideration.

[punistation]

3. Girls, on the other hand...

Remember, the Bible SPECIFICALLY denounces only man-on-man... NOT lesbians. We're free to do as we please. Nya-nyah! ^_^

Of course, when in doubt, flip open the Book of Ruth (King James Version), and check out the woman-to-woman vow of love that's been used as Marriage vows for Man-to-Woman weddings for ages.



Me, I've always been a strong advocate for gay people having the RIGHT to experience the holy, sacred institution of divorce.

Kisses XXOOXX
Jen

[tobius]

4. that would be the easiest answer.

but that assumes that the other state(s) recognize the marriage.

[kayell]

5. I believe that is what will happen

specifically, that the issue will wind up being decided by the SCOTUS, probably using the precedent set by Loving vs. VA, and based on the equal protection clause in the 14th amendment.

If the Bushites weren't completely aware that the SCOTUS will wind up having to rule that way, they would never have said they would support such a ridiculous proposal as a Marriage Discrimination Amendment. They did consult legal scholars before making that decision, and I'm sure they were told that restricting marriage rights to heterosexuals will wind up being ruled unconstitutional.

There are plenty of states that will continue to discriminate for decades to come if allowed to, just as there are states that never would have legalized interracial marriage. Because of that, this will wind up decided on the national level, just as other civil rights cases have been.

[TahitiNut]

7. There's no question at all that's what proposing the amendment shows.

There's no argument whatsoever that de facto marriages exist and will continue to exist without prohibition. Several states recognize common law marriages - where no state 'permission' to marry is required. To deny the legal perquisites of marriage to some merely on the basis of their gender is a denial of equal protection, just as interracial marriage prohibitions were.

In their very proposal of such a Constitutional amendment, the Busholinis are blatantly acknowledging that the equal protection provisions of the Constitution have been violated. If this weren't the case, no such amendment would be deemed "necessary." This is a blatant acknowledgment of unconstitutional discrimination.

[tobius]

8. Of course gay marriage would be found constitutional, there hasn't been

any argument there. Kerry's stance is that the states should be able to decide for themselves; which was the intent of DOMA when it was passed. It has been law that the states have a public policy exception to recognizing marriages from other states; and MA marriage licenses are issued on the condition that they are void elsewhere if unapproved in other states. Again the idea that the state's should decide for themselves.. re. Gay marriage (kerry's position), will create a lawyer's dream (or nightmare) if it is tried.

[TahitiNut]

6. States have varied on "common law marriage" for generations ....

... and it doesn't seem to have been a great concern about the patchwork. States have varied on the age of consent for generations and it doesn't seem to have been a great concern about the patchwork. Funny how what's been tolerable/acceptabel for heterosexuals is now, all of a sudden, intolerable? Actually, such arguments prey upon the ignorant. It's sad that we have "leadership" in this country so eager to capitalize on ignorance and so unwilling to even pay taxes on that capitalization that might serve education. :shrug: