For anyone who doubts homophobia in this country...

The BBQ Pit
101

Full Faith and Credit affects the constitutional of state law, not of federal law. While I believe DOMA is unconstitutional, it’s unconstitutional not for violating FFC (Art. IV, Sec. 1), but for being outside the power of Congress to enact. There’s no hook of federal authority for Congress for this bill to hang on. At least, I can’t think of one. It certainly doesn’t fall in any of the Article I Section 8 powers (unless you think regulating marriage is “regulating interstate commerce” which is almost certainly not true since United States v. Lopez and its progeny), nor does it appear to fall in any of the other miscellaneous Congressional powers scattered throughout the Constitution. (I’ll listen to arguments to the contrary, of course.)

I suspect Clinton knew that the bill was probably unconstitutional, but signed it anyway, for political reasons. A more principled President would have vetoed it.

102

Says who? Even if same-sex marriage is legalized, nothing will force a church to allow them to take place in that church. The separation of church and state (neat concept, that) will prevent the state from telling the church “YOU HAVE TO MARRY ANYONE WE TELL YOU TO”. I can’t get married in a Catholic church to anyone, male or female, for the trivially stupid reason that I’m not Catholic. Some ministers won’t marry people until the minister is satisfied that the couple is ready to marry. Nothing about this is going to be changed anytime soon, with or without same-sex marriage.

Because the rest of your stupid little diatribe is predicated on the completely erroneous assumption that allowing same sex marriage would force churches to marry people that they don’t want to, I am going to ignore it. Have a nice day.

103

One of the strongest arguments I see for recognizing same-sex unions is so that courts can apply the well-developed body of dissolution law to handling the disputes that inevitably arise when a couple breaks up. Right now, when a same-sex couple breaks up, there is really no law that describes how to decide who gets what. About all there is is a common-law action for partition of a tenancy in common, and that really only applies to real property. There just isn’t anything to decide who gets the china. I have a few friends who practice matrimonial law who have found themselves trying to deal with such cases and having a hell of a time with it. And don’t even think about alimony (in those states which have not abolished it). (The same problems, of course, occur in informal heterosexual unions, but the majority of heterosexual unions are formalized by marriage. Virtually* no homosexual unions are formalized by marriage.)

If there are children involved in the relationship (and this happens more than you might realize), it gets even worse. The partner who made no genetic contribution has no rights at all under the domestic relations laws in every state that I know of, not even visitation. The fact that children might form a bond with “Nana” or “Uncle Bob” is of no concern at all to the courts. It’s not unheard of for the other genetic contributor (who may well have taken little or no role in raising the children) to come storming in at this juncture and demand custody of the child(ren), and win. Realistically, this is not good for the children in such a situation, but because the law doesn’t recognize same-sex unions, the law is readily perverted into serving wholly unjust ends.

I agree with several other posters who think the state should get out of the marriage business entirely, and deal with a more genericized “family” unit so as to further the state’s acknowledged interest in ensuring the welfare of children. I’m still not clear on how best to deal with things like the spousal privilege and intestate succession, but that can be sorted out.

  • There are a small number of existing same-sex marriages in the United States; all of them have arisen when a heterosexual couple has become a homosexual couple as a consequence of one partner obtaining sexual reassignment. Since the legal sex of an reassigned individual varies from state to state, these marriages are legally somewhat strange and have occasionally been denied legal standing. The number of such marriages is sufficiently small as to not rise to the level of public attention.
104

No, I do not call that discrimination, and here is why- You can marry that self-same “floozy” as I could-even tho you are gay. Even tho I am hetero, I cannot marry another man. Yes, it appears, to you- to 'discriminate", and I agree it is unfair- but it does not discriminate. And if you think I am being illogical, maybe so, but I am in good company- The US Supreme Court agrees with me.

Again, I have no personal problem with same-sex marriages, in many cases. My Church will marry you & your partner. And, I agree that many who oppose same-sex marriages are bigots- but not all of them.

105

First, it is discrimination, it’s just not discrimination on the basis of individual gender. It’s discrimination on the basis of pairwise gender. Virtually all laws discriminate; the question is whether the discrimination is reasonable/constitutional, or not.

Second, the Supreme Court has never ruled on the issue of same sex marriage. Bowers v. Hardwick is not a particularly good case to point to on the issue. The underlying issue in Bowers was privacy, not marriage. Many analysts consider Bowers to be off-trend with the rest of the Court’s privacy jurisprudence (c.f. Stanley v. Georgia). This is quite probably because Bowers came to the court in a posture that did not dispose the Court to look favorably to the issue. The composition of the Court has changed dramatically since Bowers. And, as a final aside, the law in contention in Bowers has since been struck down as unconstitutional by the Georgia Supreme Court.

So I wouldn’t put too much weight on Bowers as being dispositive of the same-sex marriage question, but instead compare it to Loving v. Virginia. Virginia’s miscegination statute didn’t prevent blacks from marrying or whites from marrying (it just prevented them from marrying between each other), and by the argument you have just given, the Court should have found this not to have been discrimination. Well, they did, so I guess your argument is full of shit. Oops. If discrimination by pairwise race is race discrimination, then it stands to reason that discrimination by pairwise gender is gender discrimination.

Of course, race gets strict scrutiny. Does the argument in Loving still hold up under “intermediate” scrutiny (well-established for gender)? We don’t know. In any case, the Court hasn’t answered this question.

106

I’m new here, but another poster thought I might be interested in the subject, which I am.

First I’d like to state that I feel real sorrow for Snark. It’s certainly terrible to be in a multiple bind as he is. Not only does the LDS Church say that same-sex marriage is abominable, the Church also states that one must be married (heterosexually, natch) in the Temple to obtain the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom. It’s an awful position to be in. But this is something he’s got to work through, folks. My best friend is a disaffected member of the LDS Church and he’s bisexual as well. It’s taken him almost two decades to come to grips with this and to be open about his preferences. (I too am also a disaffected member.)

However, that does not mean that we should not call a spade a spade. If the policies of the LDS Church do real harm to gays and lesbians (as I believe they do) then we need to speak up about it. David Hardy, a former Mormon bishop, spoke up two weeks ago about the harm that Church pamphlets on homosexuality do to the psyches of young gays . (Oddly, there doesn’t seem to be a similar attack on lesbians, probably because in the Ultimate Scheme of Things, women don’t really matter.) Some of the quotes have to be seen to believe.

I would also point out that the LDS Church has done two things that should shock people with regards to the DOMA votes in various states. The first thing that the Church has done is to shake down the local members for campaign contributions. I can speak particularly about the California situation earlier this year, as it became very clear what the Church was doing from California reports. There were specific levels of contribution handed out to every ward, and the bishop was supposed to have people send that money in to the organization coordinating the efforts. Moreover, people were supposed to identify their ward and stake for “statistical purposes” (but more likely to keep a headcount of who gave and who didn’t). I find that offensive. Political contributions shouldn’t be coerced in such a fashion.

The other thing that annoyed me about California was that the Church was quite ready and did punish people who spoke out about the fundraising. I know a married couple, with children, who were put on Church probation for speaking out publicly against Prop 22 in general. The wife is now off probation, but the husband is still on probation and he cannot return to full fellowship until he apologizes to his ward for opposing the prophet. I personally wrote to President Hinckley twice asking if the Church allowed members to take a public position opposite to the Church’s stated position on a moral issue, and all I received were answers that neatly avoided the question. I know these people knew exactly what I was saying, but they didn’t want to say in print, “Yes, we will punish people for speaking out on a political issue if we’ve taken the opposite position.”

So you all can get the full force of the garbage that’s being pumped out of Salt Lake to push homosexuals into “fear and loathing” (as David Hardy stated), I’ll be posting those next.

Mirele

107

This was handed out at David Hardy’s (former Mormon bishop) press conference on Friday, October 7. Hardy was asking the Church leadership to withdraw these pamphlets. He had attempted to do so privately in a letter to Boyd K. Packer, a high Church leader and possible future president of the Mormon Church. Hardy was told that his letter to Packer was too angry and that the General Authorities do not respond to angry letters. After that, he decided to go public.

There are excerpts from three Church pamphlets here. Two of them have the copyright of Intellectual Reserve, Inc., which has held Church copyrights since circa 1998. In other words, the leadership is continually republishing this crap for consumption, even if it’s harmful.

Mirele

===============================
Letter To A Friend © 1971 The Church of Jesus Christ
of Latter-Day Saints

Author: President Spencer W. Kimbal, past President of
the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-Day Saints. First printing 1971, revised 1978;
latest printing post-1996.

Currently distributed to Stake and Ward leadership for
counseling parents and their children.

“The death penalty was exacted in the days of Israel
for such wrongdoing.”

“Perversion is forgivable.”

“. . .the sin is curable, and you may totally recover
from its tentacles.”

“Satan tells his victims that it is a natural way of
life; that it is normal; that perverts are a different
kind
of people born ‘that way’ and that they cannot change.
This is a base lie.”

“Homosexuality . . . means waste of power, an end to
the family and to civilization. One
generation of it would depopulate the world . . .”

“. . . you are one who has yielded to the enticings of
evil people and Lucifer, the ’father of lies’. . .”

“. . . you can recover, and you can become the man
your Heavenly Father created you to be.”

“. . . know that your sin is vicious and base.”

“. . . you should now make the super-human effort to
rid yourself of your master, the devil, Satan . .
.”

“You do the bidding of your master.”

“You are in abject bondage, a servant compelled to do
the will of your master, the devil,
Lucifer, Satan . . . Is your father the Devil?”

“These unnatural practices are . . . of the Devil, the
master liar and deceiver who laughs as he
rattles his chains . . .”

“God made no man a pervert”

“So long as you tolerate this ‘gay world’ and its
degenerate people, you are in a very desperate
situation . . .”

“Men who die may live again, but when the spiritual
death is total, it were better that such a man
were never born.”

“REMEMBER: Homosexuality CAN be cured.”

===================================

To The One © 1978 Intellectual Reserve, Inc. (owned by
the Church )

Author: Elder Boyd K. Packer, acting-President of the
Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, Church
of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormon). First
printing 1978; latest printing post-1996.

Currently distributed to Stake and Ward leadership for
counseling parents and their children.

“. . . it is unnatural; it is abnormal; it is an
affliction.”

“Is this tendency impossible to change? Is it present
at the time of birth and locked in? Do you just
have to live with it? . . . The answer is a conclusive
no!”

“Some so-called experts . . . teach that it is
congenital and incurable. They can point to a history
of
very little success in trying to put whatever
mechanism that causes this back into proper
adjustment.
They have, to support them, some very convincing
evidence. Much of the so-called scientific literature
concludes that there really is not much that can be
done about it. I reject that conclusion our of hand .
.
. The Lord does not work by exceptions. He works by
rules. Put a moral or a spiritual test upon it and
the needle flips conclusively to the indicator that
says ‘correctable’.”

“Some who become tangled up in this disorder become
predators. They proselyte the young or
the inexperienced.”

“In a strange way, this [homosexuality] amounts to
trying to love yourself.”

“This condition cannot as yet be uniformly corrected
by emotional or physical or psychiatric treatment.
Depending on the severity, some forms of these
treatments are of substantial help in about 25
percent of the cases.”

“. . . the cause, when found, will turn out to be a
very typical form of selfishness.”

“If one could even experiment with the possibility
that selfishness . . . may be the cause of this
disorder, that quickly clarifies many things. It opens
the possibility of putting some very sick things in
order.”

“When one has the humility to admit that spiritual
disorder is tied to perversion and that selfishness
rests at the root of it, already the way is open to
the treatment of the condition. It is a painful
admission indeed that selfishness may be at the root
of it . . .”

“I repeat; we have had very little success in trying
to remedy perversion by treating perversion. It is
very possible to cure it by treating selfishness.”

“Don’t be mixed up in this twisted kind of self-love.”

====================================

To Young Men Only © 1976 Intellectual Reserve, Inc.
(owned by the Church )

Author: Elder Boyd K. Packer, acting-President of the
Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, Church
of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormon). First
printing 1976; latest printing post-1996.

Currently distributed to Stake and Ward leadership for
counseling parents and their children.

This pamphlet was re-released in October 1999, at the
same time as the Wyoming murder trial
for the second of the two young men who beat Matthew
Shepard to death. One of the two
killers, Russell Henderson, was a young Mormon
Priesthood holder (a little-known fact within
the Church, but confirmed by reporter Paula Glover of
the Cheyenne Tribune-Eagle). This is
not to say the Church was responsible for Russell
Henderson’s actions. The point is that through
these pamphlets, a culture of fear, ignorance, and
intolerance is permitted to exist within the
Church. Russell Henderson pled guilty and thus avoided
a trial. In the trial of the other young
man, Aaron McKinney, one of the primary – but
unsuccessful – defenses was “Gay Panic” (“he
came on to me and I was so upset by his homosexuality
that I beat him to death”).

[On the subject of homosexuality; Elder Packer
relating a personal experience]

“While I was in a mission on one occasion, a
missionary said he had something to confess. I was
very worried because he just could not get himself to
tell me what he had done.

After patient encouragement he finally blurted out, ‘I
hit my companion.’

‘Oh is that all,’ I said in great relief.

‘But I floored him,’ he said.

After learning a little more, my response was “Well,
thanks. Somebody had to do it, and it
wouldn’t be well for a General Authority to solve the
problem that way.’

I am not recommending that course to you, but I am not
omitting it. You must protect
yourself.”

“Many of the world would, I am sure, be amused by this
counsel. Let them be amused. They
live by another standard, a lower one.”

<end>

108

Thank goodness.

109

I must reply to Polycarp here, whom I think highly of and know he knows what he’s talking about on many subjects.
But i must clarify what he said; its not a good idea for me or any woman to be with a man who is sexually attracted to men and been so all their life.
It makes the woman feel not-good-enough, second best.
I made that mistake twice (and Only twice) and will not do it again. I have learned from this board, quite a bit (though grammar needs some working on).
God, I believe, does not want Snark and I together, because of teh religious and sexual differences.

I wish him well, it seems like an intervention was attempted here, I can only pray it works.
The message being: please accept yourself for what you are.

110

Two items. First, a public apology to Snark and Rose for going off without the full facts (which I thought I had, but some of my information was erroneous inference from things they had said).

I still feel strongly that anyone who has a religion/sex conflict should first find self-acceptance and then deal with the conflict as fits the moral structure in which they then find themselves. This can, of course, include celibacy for those who feel homosexual acts to be sinful. (I don’t allege this, but I’m as honor-bound to respect someone’s judgment of their own conduct as potentially sinful as not – I am fairly certain that in a non-sexual arena, any poster, e.g., Esprix or goboy, could identify something that they refrain from as immoral which others practice and do not find it sinful in themselves. It’s only fair to grant Snark the same privilege.

Now, divorcing this from the wider issue with which it has gotten tangled, contemplate the case ably stated above for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, as an institution, taking steps to lobby for anti-gay-marriage laws. Of course, nobody here takes issue with the HRC lobbying for pro-gay-marriage laws. Are the cases similar? An argument could be made both ways. However, I think the point that requiring contributions from their membership for political activism, the expectation that they follow the political stance of the leadership, and conceivably the expenditure of unrestricted church funds for political activism violate several points in the Separation of Church and State doctrine – the wall has two sides!

Does the prophetic role of the Mormon leadership make a difference? Some LDS members would feel so. In isolation from the fact that this is a hot-button issue, I’d welcome the examination of whether sincere belief in revelation to church leaders justifies political intervention. (It could conceivably work the other way – God talks to Troy Perry, too!)

Finally, Kelly’s analysis of FF&C is brilliant, but flawed IMHO by one small error. Article IV, Section 1 includes two sentences, one binding on the states, and one giving Congress a certain power in respect of FF&C. Kelly, reasonably, notes that FF&C is a constitutional requirement on the states. However, that second sentence is addressed to the Congress:

The only grounds on which DOMA may be constitutionally justified, so far as I can see, is in basing it on the power granted Congress in that second sentence.

Article I, Section 10, comprises three paragraphs of restrictions on what a state may do. The second and third paragraphs include things which states may not do without the approval of Congress; the first paragraph does not provide for Congressional consent. So states can and have entered into “agreements with foreign powers” with the consent of Congress – for example, the authorities that manage international bridges along the St. Lawrence, Great Lakes, and Rio Grande. But Congress cannot empower a state to coin money, due to the restriction of the first paragraph.

As I read the first sentence of Article I, Section 4, it is stated in the positive, placing an affirmative duty on the states to grant full faith and credit to each other’s acts and decisions. The first sentence does not enable Congress to grant exceptions. By analogy with Article I, Section 10, and the legal principle of “the exception proving the rule” as first outlined by Cicero and explored (with his usual brilliance) by Cecil, we may conclude that Congress may not grant exceptions.

So any argument for the constitutionality of DOMA would hinge on exactly what that second sentence says. And it appears to me that its sole function is to enable Congress, as a body inclusive of all the states, to adopt uniform rules for how FF&C is given and what effect its use has on the decisions of the state granting it. (Classic example of this in operation is the idea of the man from, say Connecticut who goes to Nevada, establishes residency, and gets a quickie divorce, then returns to Connecticut. The courts have held, based I believe on federal statute, that while Connecticut must honor the divorce Nevada granted, Connecticut is quite free to determine the disposition of the property the couple owned in that state and what support the ex-wife may be entitled to.)

But to argue that Congress may provide that a state may ignore the decisions of another state which are not to its taste is a violation of the provisions of Article IV, Section 1 – and flies in the fact of Section 2:

DOMA allows the states to pick and choose which “privileges and immunities” citizens of other states who come within its jurisdiction may have, in the very personal area of marriage. And, as I have noted before, the precedent is not restricted to the effect on gay persons – by its precedent, there is no reason why North Carolina should be compelled to recognize the fact that 25-and-a-half years ago, two lifelong citizens of New York who now reside within the Tarheel State contracted a valid New York marriage.

It is not stretching matters too far to suggest that Congress may empower California to ignore the fact that three of its citizens have arranged for a mail drop in Delaware and established a corporation under the laws of that state, that corporation then entering into a speculative business in the state of California. Clearly, if the business goes bottoms-up, not merely the negligible assets of the corporation but the personal property of the three Californians may be attached to settle the supposed corporation’s debts, since a Delaware corporation need not be recognized by California – at least if Congress so chooses. (I recognize this is an extreme example, but the precedent is in place to allow it!)

I find the precedent horrifying – on a par with the War Against Drugs assault on the Bill of Rights. And not merely because I support gay rights. Because I support the Constitution.

111

For the ladies, Clitorette or the pill form, PieBan.

112

I was aware of this argument (yeah, you believe me!) but left it out of the discussion because it ends up looping around back into the same equal-protection analysis that applies to state gender-biased marriage laws. Congress could say that “proof of a same sex marriage requires the testimony of a beaver, woodchuck, or other rodent weighing more than 10 pounds but not more than 40 pounds who was actually present at the event” – but if it enacted a differential standard for same-sex than opposite-sex marriages, the Court will have to consider the exact same analysis that it would have to apply in analyzing a state law prohibiting same-sex marriage while allowing opposite-sex marriage.

By the way, the way Nevada quickie divorces were settled (if I recall correctly) is that the purported ex-spouse can ignore the Nevada judgment because Nevada failed to afford him or her due process of law (specifically, adequate notice). Since a judgment obtained without due process is void, a state need not recognize the judgment. This is why, when you try to execute an out-of-state judgment, the state in which execution is sought may conduct a due process hearing to determine if the out-of-state judgment afforded due process to the individual against which execution is sought.

113

Snark, we who believe in God, in our assorted ways, all occasionally feel we ‘know’ where God stands on the issues, or what God’s instructing us to do. But I cannot expect everyone else to recognize the inherent validity of my ‘instruction’ from God, nor is it reasonable for you to act like you expect the non-LDS majority here to recognize the validity of what your church fathers believe is a prophetic message.

In order for people of different religious beliefs to civilly discuss their differences, modifications such as “Mormon leaders believe they have been instructed by God Himself to oppose SSM” or “I believe Mormon leaders have been instructed by God Himself to oppose SSM” are helpful. It recognizes the fundamental uncertainty we all have as to whether we are receiving the same message God is sending us.

Without such qualifiers, our respective expressions of religious belief amount to “We’re right, and everyone else is wrong, because God says so.” Needless to say, this sort of statement doesn’t leave a whole lot of response options. If they don’t fall at your feet, recognizing your deeper understanding of God (a long shot, needless to say), people are either going to respond with a hearty ‘fuck you’, as Satan did, or just ignore you. At any rate, it doesn’t promote any sort of discussion or reasoned give-and-take.

114

‘Discrimination’ is a funny word, isn’t it? I suppose we could pass a law decreeing that no ceilings or doorways could be more than six feet in height. That wouldn’t be discrimination, because it would treat everybody equally, tall and short alike. The fact that the law’s effects would fall only on tall people would be unfair, but not discriminatory, in Daniel’s analysis.

Webster’s says:
“discriminate: to make a difference in treatment or favor on a basis other than individual merit.” Such a law would certainly make a difference in favor; any tall person, required to stoop by the ceilings that applied to tall and short alike, would contend that the law treats him differently as well.

To ignore the radically unbalanced effects of such an action in deciding whether it’s discriminatory clearly eludes the dictionary definition of the word, as well as its fundamental meaning. goboy is absolutely correct - the situation he describes is discriminatory. Laws banning the recognition of same-sex unions may apply to all alike, but their effect is to treat some worse than others, and they clearly and intentionally single out gays for disfavor.

115

The DOMA is a bad, bad idea. This pre-emptive strike is an attempt to shut down part of the discussion on how to legally handle relationships other than nuclear families, and it won’t work. A full public debate and compromise period has to occur, especially on how, why and should marriages must be so “defended”. This is an indication that marriages are not advocated in the streets and churches to heterosexuals to the legislators’ liking, so this bill is needed for reinforcement. This does smack of religious dogma, something that is to be avoided.

There has to be a discussion about what marriage is. It is supposed to be an arrangement for the sole purpose to optimize production and rearing of children? Is it a financial relationship, as some people treat it? Or is it a vow of lasting intimate commitment between two people who have a deep affection to each other? In answering each of these above question, the reasoning behind DOMA, I believe falls short.

There is no evidence that openly gay people raise children any better or worse than straight people. Indeed, gay people are now granted custody in courts. There are studies though, that demonstate the need for a child to have a mother and a father figure in their early development. That can be handled by involving friends of the opposite sex in the raising of the child. Today, there are many options besides naturally to produce and rear a child. And, most certainly, some gay relationships have a monogamous intimacy that is matched by only a few heterosexual relationships. So it leaves only one thing: the ‘legitimacy’ of homosexual relationships that would entail if same-sex relationships have the same legal standing as marriage between those of different sexes. That is practically the only reason behind DOMA.

For conservatives who favor this bill, it can bite them in the rear, as it runs the risk of totally backfiring when litigated to the Supreme Court, who, regardless of configuration, will more than likely apply the Full Faith and Credit clause to strike it down. Then same-sex relationships will be matrimonially valid in all states.

116

All a “traditional family values” conservative need do is compare, say, Melissa Etheridge and her lover and their family to, say, Anna Nicole Smith and her late octogenarian husband to see the real corrosion behind the traditional American family… :rolleyes: (Yeah, like that court battle was something to be proud of!)

Of course DoMA and all of its’ state-level little siblings will be struck down by the USSC as unconstitutional - every constitutional and governmental law expert I’ve ever seen has said so. We just need the “test case” for it to get there first.

That, and a lot of attitudes need changing.

Esprix

117

Julie and 'lissa broke up a couple of months ago. It’s time to find another loving homosexual couple to use as an example for a strong relationship so that the constant media spotlight eventually splits them apart, too.

118

If you want to see hate masquerading as a question you should see this: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=43610 where Rook asks if there is a gay gene and then calls gay people “screw-ups” and claims that we are genetic mistakes. I’m starting to wonder if he’s a Dr. Laura troll.

Come to the pit, Rook. I have some choice words for your loathesome ass.