For My Buddy Grey One More Time - Civil Unions and Gay Marriage

[coffeecrazy1]

[ QUOTE ]
No, they usually just curse the left for using the judiciary to legislate law and reinterpret the Constitution as they see fit.

[/ QUOTE ] Fair enough. I was really just having a little fun. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, wether we like to believe it or not, people do oppose homosexuality on moral grounds and do not want to recognize it as a valid lifestyle and they should be allowed to if they get control of the legislature just as the gay communittee has the rights to try to change the law through the legislature.

Having one state change the rules is tyrany of the minority which has been the case for far too long.


[/ QUOTE ] Well...I oppose gay marriage on moral grounds, but not legal ones. That said, what you seem to imply is that our only fair choices are a)do away with the Equal Protection Clause; or b)do away with marriage as a legal institution in this country.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with either implication, nor any of your statements. I actually am undecided...it's certainly a point worth pondering. But...how could we possibly proceed with a) or b)...hypothetically, of course, since I think both of them have less chance of happening than total drug legalization.

[etgryphon]

[ QUOTE ]

Well...I oppose gay marriage on moral grounds, but not legal ones. That said, what you seem to imply is that our only fair choices are a)do away with the Equal Protection Clause; or b)do away with marriage as a legal institution in this country.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with either implication, nor any of your statements. I actually am undecided...it's certainly a point worth pondering. But...how could we possibly proceed with a) or b)...hypothetically, of course, since I think both of them have less chance of happening than total drug legalization.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not really... The answer is c) The judiciary does not have authority to define what marriage is only the legislature. I am against it on moral and legal grounds but I give more weight to it on legal grounds because of the implications to democracy. I don't really care if same-sex people are in love and do what ever it is that they want to do in the privacy of their own homes. When it begins to take a legal stance that is against democracy then i have a problem.

-Gryph

[tolbiny]

"Well, wether we like to believe it or not, people do oppose homosexuality on moral grounds and do not want to recognize it as a valid lifestyle and they should be allowed to if they get control of the legislature just as the gay communittee has the rights to try to change the law through the legislature."

Except there is a baseline for what types of laws can be passed built into the constitution. Secondly- what if x number of states supported gay marriage, and y number were against it. States in group Y claim that no other state can allow marriage because of the equal protection act because it would then force them to accept it- so state Y is effectively pushing its values on state x. when does the blance of x verses y change enough for one side to have to admit defeat?

[etgryphon]

[ QUOTE ]
"Well, wether we like to believe it or not, people do oppose homosexuality on moral grounds and do not want to recognize it as a valid lifestyle and they should be allowed to if they get control of the legislature just as the gay communittee has the rights to try to change the law through the legislature."

Except there is a baseline for what types of laws can be passed built into the constitution. Secondly- what if x number of states supported gay marriage, and y number were against it. States in group Y claim that no other state can allow marriage because of the equal protection act because it would then force them to accept it- so state Y is effectively pushing its values on state x. when does the blance of x verses y change enough for one side to have to admit defeat?

[/ QUOTE ]

The interesting thing here is that if a STATE legislature passed legislation that legalized gay marriage, I would have to consider that a valid democratic move and to be recognized by other states. I just have a problem with the judiciary manipulating the law to redefine marriage. I just don't think that there is enough popular support in any state to do this yet. California has come close, but it got [puns]Terminated...but, It'll be back...[/puns]

-Gryph

[Meech]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, wether we like to believe it or not, people do oppose homosexuality on moral grounds and do not want to recognize it as a valid lifestyle and they should be allowed to if they get control of the legislature just as the gay communittee has the rights to try to change the law through the legislature.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, wether we like to believe it or not, people do oppose christianity on moral grounds and do not want to recognize it as a valid lifestyle and they should be allowed to if they get control of the legislature just as the atheist communittee has the rights to try to change the law through the legislature.

[vulturesrow]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
Well, wether we like to believe it or not, people do oppose homosexuality on moral grounds and do not want to recognize it as a valid lifestyle and they should be allowed to if they get control of the legislature just as the gay communittee has the rights to try to change the law through the legislature.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, wether we like to believe it or not, people do oppose christianity on moral grounds and do not want to recognize it as a valid lifestyle and they should be allowed to if they get control of the legislature just as the atheist communittee has the rights to try to change the law through the legislature.

[/ QUOTE ]

1st amendment?

[ QUOTE ]
it has to do with the Constitution. Marriage is a defined and broad term in all states. The Constitution provides provisions that all states must honor legal documents from others states such as death certs, marriage license and civil unions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not so. States may refuse to give "full faith and credit" to the legal acts of other states that are offensive to the states' public policy. So the constitutional problem you cite is not really a problem. The equal protection clause is something else, but that already applies nationwide so it does not provide a basis for your worry that a single state can set nationwide marraige policy.

[elwoodblues]

Could a state fail to recognize a divorce --- for example imagine that a state believes that one can only get divorced for specific reasons. Would they have to recognize a divorce in another state that where none of the three reasons were met --- I would suspect that they would have to recognize it even if they found it morally reprehensible.

[ QUOTE ]
Could a state fail to recognize a divorce --- for example imagine that a state believes that one can only get divorced for specific reasons. Would they have to recognize a divorce in another state that where none of the three reasons were met --- I would suspect that they would have to recognize it even if they found it morally reprehensible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Excellent question. Without doing a lot of research, I will say that it would likely come out as follows: If a state permits divorce (for reasons X, Y, and Z), then the concept of divorce is not repugnant to the public policy of that state. Therefore, if would have to give FF&amp;C to a divorce on other grounds from another state.

Now, if a state were to abolish divorce entirely, then it might well come out differently.

[etgryphon]

Read the link in my other post and take a look at Loving v. Virginia. That is why one states change in law to marriage with be applied to other states. The question of the "full faith and credit" clause has not been appied to marriage yet and their hasn't been any cases on it to my knowledge. I gaurentee that would come before the court. It is the only and only concern about the who thing.

-Gryph