most emphatically.
Zoff, you’re in left field on two points, one legal and one rectofossally ambiguous.
First, the full text of Article IV, Section 1 and first sentence of Section 2:
Section 1’s first sentence could not be clearer. If you own land in Minnesota under its laws, then in every state you are the owner of Minnesota land. If you legally hold stock in a Delaware corporation, your entitlement to that stock is valid in every state – even if you bought it through a broker in San Francisco, are selling it to a guy from Montana, and have never visited Delaware, its laws on corporations and their stockholders apply to your ownership. And if you’re married in Alabama and get a Nevada divorce, your marriage was valid in all 50 states and so is your divorce.
Second sentence empowers Congress to prescribe a uniform rule for “proving” such acts, records, and proceedings, “and the effect thereof.” This would imply to me as a non-lawyer that Congress can state that, e.g., you need a document certified by the court or the county clerk where it was enacted, recorded, or decided to introduce some claimed matter in the courts of another state.
Now, to take everybody back to high school history, you learn there about two or three cases of Constitutional law. And one of them ruled that Congress may legislate only in areas where it has express power to legislate, or what is “reasonable and proper” to carry out one of its express powers. Another ruled that when the Constitution and an act of Congress come into contradiction, the Constitution wins.
So in other words, Congress can enable states to void any marriage that will not lead to children? Not in my book!! My wife is past menopause; Phil and Peta are childless by choice, and IIRC unable to conceive together. And I’ll happily institute a class action suit against any politician sleazy enough to screw with my marriage, and I’m pretty sure Phil and Peta will too. And, just for the record, as a person married in New York and living in North Carolina, which has a rarely enforced but on the books fornication law, I would be quite interested in whether the courts consider me as properly doing my husbandly duty to my lawfully wedded wife or a felon engaged in criminal fornication with a woman I thought I married under a law the Congress says they can choose to ignore.
“One state should not be able to essentially legislate to another state”? Can I reproduce that quote for my garden? It will fertilize it well! In this country, each state may determine what laws best suit its citizens, subject to their rights under the Federal and State constitutions, and expect that actions taken under those laws will be recognized by other states where applicable. That’s what the pertinent passage in Article IV is all about. If they don’t like that, they should never have ratified the Constitution or applied for statehood.
Bottom line: DOMA is an attempt by Congress to subvert the Full Faith and Credit clause, is as unconstitutional as a national zoning law, and should be thrown out by any court capable of reading anything more complex than “Run, Dick, run.”
Now, let’s turn to your passage about court decisions on marriage:
Fascinating. Heterosexual marriage is compared with homosexual sodomy. Uh-huh. I think I’ll leave the appropriate flames that this, uh, interesting logical leap implies to those better equipped to ignite them. I’d merely make two comments:
[li]Marriage is not about sex. It’s an element of marriage, but not the whole thing. Marriage is about committing your life to the person you love to spend the rest of it together with him/her, being there for him/her and knowing he/she will be there for you, sharing joys and sorrows, resolving arguments, resting in the comfort that you are no longer alone. Having a good time in bed (or elsewhere) is a piece of that, but by no means the main aspect. And no gay wants to marry so he/she can have sex – it is, in case you hadn’t noticed, the year 2000, and people have sex regularly without getting a license first. Gays who want to marry want it, primarily, because they love each other.[/li][li]I pity your spouse.[/li]
Scylla:
Absolutely.
I feel that they would due to the mutual benefits a married couple provides in terms of financial stability, but, also, a part of that deduction as it was explained to me is to help provide the financial wherewithal to have children.
The deduction is for being a married couple, in lieu of two deductions on separate returns. Children are additional exemptions (and, more recently, credits.) And there is absolutely no reason to equate heterosexual marriage=with children/homosexual marriage=without. Gay couples just can’t conceive within the marriage by the normal process. Some marriages have children, straight or gay; some do not. Has nothing to do with orientation; it has to do with desire to parent.
True. I gave an example in my own case, with reasons. However, your extended arguments about quickie divorces, gay marriages, and remarriages, while valid, is stretching the situation. I’d say these sorts of things are highly improbable, and that other means of transferring title and such would be found.
This is a completely distinct issue, I think. I’d assume that any gay marriage statute would contemplate monogamy – one can have one and only one spouse, of the gender of one’s preference. Laws governing legal polyamory might be an interesting thread, but constitute a slight hijack of this one.
All in all, though, you raise interesting issues in a sensible manner. Though I disagree with them and have responded to your post in a post of my own that begins in moderate dudgeon, please do not take that as a putdown of yours.
Just to clarify, the paragraph in the response to Scylla portion of my post that follows “Absolutely” and begins “I feel…” is an excerpt from Scylla’s post that I had thought I had deleted when responding line by line, not my comment. Moderators, if you’d be willing to edit that paragraph out and delete this post, I’d be grateful.
I agree with you. I believe homosexuals should be allowed to marry. Somebody asked asked about the law and I provided an answer. When I wrote “It doesn’t make a lot of sense, but there it is” it was an attempt to show that I don’t agree with the line of reasoning. I think it’s garbage to argue that Due Process doesn’t apply because it didn’t apply in the old days.
Thus, I am not in “left field” you can’t “fertilize your garden” with my post and there is no need to “pity [my] wife”.
Polycarp:
No offense taken. It seems that once we accept gay marriage (as I feel we must,) then the next issue beomes the desire of a gay couple to raise children. Adoption is an option, of course, but certainly they should be entitled to raise their own biological children if they so desire.
This of course is a parallel situation with the problem of straight couples who wish to have children but for biological reasons cannot, and the role that a surrogate plays within a marriage, or family unit.
A lesbian and a gay couple with the same desires forms an especially appealing solution to this problem (if it is one.)
How such a grouping might formalize their arrangement within or without the benefits of marriage, and how marriage laws might be changed to accomodate them is certainly food for thought. Such could have interesting and beneficial ramifications for others engaged in surrogate relationships as well as those in traditional marriages.
I don’t see the traditional marriage being threatened by such a process, and in fact can only imagine that the ramifications might be a big positive for all involved.
I too, don’t think that the Estate tax issues are particularly troubling though, as much of what I’ve described has its analogue in traditional marriage.
Interesting to think about, but perhaps something for another thread as you’ve suggested.
Snark
I don’t know whether to flame you to tears or to pity you. Your jumping off a bridge tangent is ludicrous and offensive to me. Twenty years ago Cajun Man and I “jumped off” that bridge. We are doing just fine, thanks for asking.
And you know this because… Oh yeah, they said so. Bull! They do make the rules, not God.
What goboy said, especially:
Until you realize the truth of this statement, you will remain sad, pathetic, and incomplete.
Let’s see…if you drive while drunk, you run the risk of not only harming yourself, but of harming other innocent non-drunk drivers.
If you are a man marrying another man, EVEN IF this is harmful (and I still have no reason to believe you find it to be anything but spiritually harmful, and the day this country begins to legislate based on keeping us spiritually safe is the day I move to Canada), you are only “harming” yourselves. Frankly, it is the right of every heterosexual adult to get into a “harmful” relationship if they so choose–in fact, countless women marry men who beat the shit out of them every day, which is much more obviously dangerous than SSM could ever be, even to the most staunchly religious person.
And lest you bring up seat-belt or helmet laws, I will mention that those laws were enacted as almost a public-health and financial issue. They keep insurance and state medical costs down. SSM, on the other hand, is no more a public health issue than any monogamous (or even non-monogamous) heterosexual relationship.
So basically, Snark, you’re talking out of your ass yet again. It’s really sad. I wish you would just put something in there so it would shut up, sometimes.
I would STILL call all the above part and parcel of democracy. Everyone who engages in the activities you mention does so of their own free will, and no one is barred from opposing them.
Those “God hates fags” signs make me wince. I don’t think God hates anyone.
I wouldn’t be too sure that a “minority” of people oppose gay rights. I am not an expert by any means, but my overwhelming impression is that a LOT of people oppose gay rights in theory, but aren’t moved to do anything in practice. The issue of gay marriage has mobilized people opposed to gay rights more than almost anything other issue in the history of the gay rights movement.
I’m still in shock that Byzantine is from Utah…she must live with a lot of mental stress! But what she said about the “fringe” going out and voting more sounds good to me. But what if the “silent majority” did the same thing? I have a feeling that things would get a lot worse for gays in a hurry. Possible also for women, blacks, and Jews, in that order.
I think my positions on this topic have come across as a little heartless. I’m just trying to look at the whole thing realistically. We can talk about “rights” and thats all well and good. But things like “rights” and “law” only exist when people with power, i.e. kings, a ruling class/caste, or, in a democracy, a majority of the populace, believes in and supports them. This is the nature of society everywhere, all the time. What is written in our Constitution doesn’t make a damn bit of difference if people don’t agree to follow it. Gay marriage just doesn’t have enough support behind it to make it a reality. Fair or unfair, that’s how it is. We can work within the system to change that, but success is NOT an inevitability, as some people on this Board seem to think. Might I remind people that England and Germany were both pretty freewheeling places before Oliver Cromwell and Hitler took over, respectively. Things could just as easily REGRESS here just like they did in those places.
The nature of governments and the unwritten social contract required to support nations ALWAYS involve some parties getting their way over others.
They ARE allowed to marry. There is no law against a homosexual man marrying a woman, or a homosexual woman marrying a man. For that matter they can get married, send out the invitations, say vows, cut a big cake and fly to Aruba together, they just won’t derive all the legal benefits without some tricky legal manoevres. They can’t marry who they want and have it recognized by the government, because the law is clumsy.
I’m gonna restate my earlier point a little differently, because to be honest I think a lot of folks are unconsciously locked into paradigms that leave their arguments lacking on this issue.
The problem with marriage laws is NOT, exactly, that they discriminate against homosexuals, because they don’t. Marriage law is exactly the same for everyone; any competent adult can marry a competent adult of the opposite sex. You can be a homosexual anyway; sexual orientation isn’t relevant to the basic premise of the law.
The problem is the legal concept of marriage itself. It is entirely, from the state’s point of view, an arbitary legal definition created to account for a social norm. Making marriage a law is exactly as logical as making “siblingiarage” a law, whereby brothers and/or sisters have a special legal status, or “uncleiarage” or something.
If you extend marriage rights to homosexuals, now you have to account for, say, platonic relationships or triad relationships or bigamists. (I do not understand why bisexuals need anything beyond homosexual marriage being legal; can’t a bisexual be monogamous?) Defining marriage as being only a man and woman with, or having had, a sexual relationship is exclusionary, but it’s only slightly less exclusionary that saying it’s between two adults of any gender. What about three, or close relationships without sex?
And once you extend marriage to every conceivable cohabitating relationship - or any relationship at all, cause why do they have to cohabitate? - you now get into the sticky position of explaining to the 16% of the population that ISN’T covered by the new laws why they’re not getting tax breaks and health care coverage the other 84% are.
The most effective and efficient way to deal with the problem is to eliminate marriage, legally, altogether. Readjust tax laws and benefit rules to account for this; it wouldn’t be that hard. By doing this you eliminate any degree of benefit being given to any particular sexual orientation.
Consider a parallel; suppose we were to say that marriage law stated that brown-eyed people must marry blue-eyed people, but brown-eyed people can’t marry brown-eyed people and blue-eyed people can’t marry blue-eyed people. What’s the logical solution to this idiocy?
A) Bring in laws that say brown- and blue-eyed people can marry same-eyed people, thereby ignoring the plight of green-eyed people or people who want to marry more than one person.
B) Bring in an array of laws covering every conceivable combination, with all the attendant confusions in tax law.
C) Just fucking dump the law and let people do what they want.
The answer’s obvious, isn’t it?
Make marriage what it always should have been - a private contractual matter. I think marriage is great, but the central problem here is not “rights,” it’s an arbitrary definition of a legally undefinable concept. You will not solve this problem with more or different legislation! It will only be successfully solved with LESS legislation.
Take it off the books.
The idea that homosexuals can “marry” needs clarification. Legally, they can not and that is the focus of the discussion as I understand it. The act of having a minister or whoever do a ceremony is not actually a marriage. Marriage is a legal union, not merely what a couple thinks. That is why, I believe, many homosexuals are upset with DOMA. Sure, they can have a ceremony, but it doesn’t count to the state. It seems that most of us agree that either (1) homosexuals should be allowed to legally marry, or (2) there should be no concept such as “legal marriage” you’re putting the cart before the horse to say that they can get married as it is commonly understood.
Our disagreement may just come down to semantics, but I wanted to clarify my comments. Since my post was dealing with the legal issues regarding marriage, my use of the word “marriage” was in the context of legal marriage.
I merged RickJay’s comments with the comments of somebody here at the office. My response is irrelevant to much of what he said. Sorry.
Zoff…Mea culpa. I often miss important little bits like your disclaimer. I learned a lot about how the DOMA advocates see the law from your post, but (as I think is obvious) strongly disagree with their reasoning.
Do I understand that your intent was to show their thinking in juxtaposing Loving, Griswold, et al. with Bowers? If so, please consider that flame redirected at the clowns who deserve it. I find despicable anyone who thinks that “marriage = legal sex” regardless of the topic of discussion.
Damn, I feel stupid in missing that point. And I wasted a good flame, too! 
RickJay and Scylla: It would be my understanding that the issue at hand on “gay marriages” and related topics is whether two persons can marry, even though they do not happen to fit the local social standard for what constitutes a “proper marriage.” And Loving v. Virginia is case law that marriage to one other person is a civil right of Americans. In your constructions regarding parentage of children of gay couples, you miss one key point: “legal filiation” is only tangentially involved with whose genes went to create this child. Two of my foster sons married women with a child (one each) and assumed parental roles. They would have been willing to adopt the kids if the natural father had not been involved (regular visits and support when working). In the cases you outline, one couple would function as parents, with the other being surrogate.
While I agree that the issue does lead in theory to a discussion of multiple marriages and their legality, ethicity, and so on, there is a line that needs to be drawn – nobody I’ve read but you raising the question has been prepared to suggest that multiple-partner marriages is a part of the issue at hand; it’s “one-on-one” play that’s being discussed, and the advocates are simply saying that you need to OK “intramural” as well as “interscholastic play.” 
(Yeesh, that analogy doesn’t even make it for me!)
Snark, let us get a number of points clear:
-
Nobody on this board has any objection to your believing whatever you wish.
-
Some of us are concerned for what you are personally putting yourself through due to those beliefs. However, that is an issue better tackled elsewhere if at all.
-
I’ve known too many people who have had to find their way from self-loathing to self-acceptance, due to their sexuality or to other issues, not to have a problem with your projecting your own issues onto others. That analogy is a good example of what I’m talking about. You are the sole mortal judge of you – and everyone else is of themselves. If you think that there’s a valid comparison between your God-given sexuality and alcoholism, fine; that’s your issue. Projecting that analogy on others tends to insult them, as you may have noticed.
-
Finally, and I cannot make this clear enough, no law in America should be passed on the basis of its content being in keeping with a religious revelation. And I would say that if the revelation were precisely the opposite – which as you well know the LDS prophetic leadership has announced in the past, as regards polygamy and admission of blacks to the priesthood. I make no public judgment on them – you taught me a lesson on that one – but their invasion of political turf is contrary to the spirit of free choice of the right that I believe God grants every human being. In short, with David B., I would say you have the right to belive what you wish, but when you seek legislation to enforce what you believe on me, you’ve crossed the line. If I were to begin advocating, on the basis of Episcopal church wedding vows, to require that all weddings performed in America be “till death do us part,” not only would advocates of term marriages be offended, but I am certain that you and other staunch Mormons would have a serious problem – in view of the fact that that was one of the major issues between you and Vanilla. I trust you see the comparison.
Others have read you the riot act about the awkwardness of that analogy, so I will not. May I urge upon you the idea that each man is to “work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you.” And that even the best of intentions is insufficient in making legal strictures on others “for the good of their souls.” There must be a clear danger to others for a law prohibiting a behavior to be worthwhile. And that danger should not, IMHO, be someone’s revelation of the imminent wrath of God, regardless of whether it be Jerry Falwell, the Ayatollah Khomeini, the current prophet of the CoJCoLDS, jmullaney, or me.
goboy and Drain Bead, when you learn some manners and dump the potty-mouths and insults, maybe I’d be more inclined to answer you.
Dr Matrix, I meant no offense to you. And I’m the first to admit that I jumped off that bridge, too. I’m not trying to judge you.
Polycarp, I think it’s sad that you’re opposing your own Lord’s prophets, but hey, your call.
pldennison, try and learn the difference between “form” and “substance,” since you seem to be favoring the former over the latter. The most poorly-constructed true sentence stands, while the most polished and scholarly false sentence is just a turd with glitter on it. (And I know what your reply to that will be.)
It’s an interesting truism that if everybody in the world thinks you are an asshole, either everybody in the world is mistaken, or…
Aww Scylla, I don’t think you’re an asshole! 
(Hey, just trying to inject a little humor into a deathly serious thread that threatens to erupat at any minurte…)
Well, Daniel, let me clarify, in case it wasn’t clear in ALL of my posts -
ALL religion is bullshit to me. Dogma is dogma. I do not believe in organized religion and I never will. The Book of Mormons…the Bible…it’s all nonsensical IMHO. I could care less who wrote what, when, where or why. I only care that people live their lives in ignorance, hatred and hypocracy because they let someone long dead tell them what to think.
If that comes off as ignorance…well yes, I am ignorant about Mormonism. I only know what I have learned on this board. However, I was raised strictly Catholic and am quite knowledgeable about that. Still…hate is hate, ignorance is ignorance. I don’t see much difference between any of them.
I also do not consider myself a bigot. I am tolerant to others’ religion. Believe what you want. I will not call you stupid, ignorant, or evil.
However, the minute any religion tries to legislate against people by cause of their own bigotry (it does go both ways) than yes I will be intolerant and vocal, to my fullest abilities.
I have written letters to my Congresspeople and Senators about my opinion on abortion, gun control, and SSM. I have campaigned for one Senator in particular, before I was old enough to vote. If I believe strongly agaisnt something, I will fight it. If that makes me a bigot in your eyes, than a bigot I will be. But I am quite proud of my efforts and will not bend to popular opinion because it’s popular, nor will I watch our rights go down the drain because of a religion that I (and many others) do not believe in.
Snark:
You have the right (as we all do) to vote your conscience. But it’s far from clear that the LDS (or any) church as an organization has the right to formally engage in active political campaigning.
When a church actively campaigns as an organization, many people (rightly, IMHO) feel that the line between preaching morality and legislating morality is being crossed. (This is a constantly fuzzy line here in Utah, where the majority of the state legislature is LDS. So even if they’re all just voting their conscience, they tend to vote along with the church dogma. Despite this, I don’t think Utah is a bad place to live. Though sometimes it’s frustrating.)
We would hope that on issues where intelligent people may obviously disagree, that one would be a good enough person to realize that one’s morality is not everyone’s morality.
Here’s an idea: If the LDS church’s moral rules are so good, how about you guys show us by example, instead of trying to force your “correct” ideas on everyone. Until you’re a pretty good example of that moral lifestyle you want everyone to live, climb down off your high horse and let other run their lives, as they allow you to do. (That’s a generic “you”, not a specific “you”, BTW.)
Ugly
Maybe you forgot where we were, Snark? Let’s see…this thread is in the BBQ Pit, meaning that I can flame you all I want. And frankly, your asinine comments deserve a LOT more than what I gave you. Don’t you DARE try to act like you’re above everyone else. Hell, according to your own church’s logic, which you have so conveniently been brainwashed into, you are no better than a fucking drunk driver. Of course I believe this statement about as far as I can throw a cheesecake under water, but this isn’t about what I believe. Don’t let your inferiority complex about who you want to nail let you reach for any reason to think you’re superior to everyone else about anything. Christ, you can’t even make an analogy without holes in it, but instead of answering my objections (because you obviously CAN’T), you hide behind the fact that I have a “otty mouth.” Well, you know what you can do? You can bend over and blow yourself, because you’re obviously too scared of WHAT YOU ARE to get anyone to do it for you.
I used to feel sorry for you, because you’re only dooming yourself to a life of hell for absolutely no good. But you know what? You can take your religious-based and wholly undeserved superior attitude and shove it up your ass. God knows you want something else up there, but this will have to fucking do.
Get the fuck out of here, Church Lady. You obviously can’t handle it.
Now THAT’S a potty mouth.
Polycarp does not need my help here. Knowing Polycarp the way I do, he probably wouldn’t even reply to this tripe. Fortunately, I never professed to have the class that he has, and I have been silent for far too long.
Polycarp (and a few others here) have been VERY nice with you, Snark. They have been patient. They have, frankly, pitied you for your circumstances - some of which were beyond your control. They have tried to help you. They have even what I managed - simply to keep their mouths shut when you deserved to be called on your shit.
But now, you have somehow decided that you know God better than Polycarp. That your interpretation of the Bible is more accurate than Polycarp’s is. That you know God’s will.
Snark, you don’t even know your OWN fucking will.
First of all, you are a faggot. Nothing will change that. Not all the self-loathing because of a God who hates you, not all of the marriage proposals to people you just met, not anythinfg will change this.
When you jerk off, you think of men. You think of yourself sucking them. You think of them sucking you. You see yourself kissing a man and the whiskers of his facial hair on your cheek feel so real to you. You think about rubbing him while he rubs you.
You think of all of the things that your God says will condemn you to Hell.
Now, let’s talk about that God of yours. You know, that LDS doctrine? The stuff that makes Christians condemn you for following a false prophet? Yeas, you call your sect “The Church Of Jesus Christ Latter Day Saints,” but REAL Christians see you as delusional and confuseed at best, and a hellbound heretic at worst. Either way, it’s the down elevator for you.
Allow me to somehow in this emotional and long-overdue rant try and bring it all together: You are totally fucked up. You hate yourself for being something you cannot change. You hate your parents for instilling into you a God who would make you hate yourself. You hate God for making you this way. When you pray to Him, you ask “Why,” don’t you? He never fucking answers you, does he. Faggot.
I hope this is unpleasant. You, of all people, coming in here trying oh so hard to make yourself feel better by insulting others.
Guess what, Snark? Try as you might, you cannot get into heaven by the rules that you seem to want to enforce just by acting above others who don’t share your views.
Especially when getting into heaven is not nearly as urgent a thing to do as having a cock in your ass.
You are a sick, sick person, Snark. I would say you need to get help, but you are beyond help. You will live a life of hating yourself forever. This is what you resign yourself to. This is how you have to be, or you wouldn’t even recognize yourself inthe mirror.
Fuck you, Snark. Go on forever hating yourself.
But don’t you DARE try and gain a sliver of happiness by piously dragging those down around you - ESPECIALLY those who tried so hard to be your goddamn friend.
It won’t work.
You’re going to Hell anyway. Faggot.
Yer pal (unless you’re Snark),
Satan
*TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING:
Six months, one week, four days, 1 hour, 59 minutes and 48 seconds.
7763 cigarettes not smoked, saving $970.41.
Extra time with Drain Bead: 3 weeks, 5 days, 22 hours, 55 minutes.
I slept with a REPUBLICAN moderator!*
Oh, you mean at some point in your life you essentially married another man? That’s what DrMatrix meant when he said we “jumped off that bridge” almost 21 years ago.