minty: As if they needed any more?
Considering a majority of American believe we’ve found WMDs in Iraq and get their news from Fox News, I’m not sure if your faith is well-placed.
See minty green’s post above.
Hogwash. The purpose of a Constitution is to establish the framework for governance and set forth the basic law of the land.
As for the decision, I knew the “best interests of the child” was the path to gay marriage. I am now a prophet! 
Same Sex Adoption: An Alternative Approach to Gay Marriage in New York, 62 Brook. L.Rev. 399 (1996)
Sua
The wee State of Massachusetts can make any law it pleases pertaining to marriage - man and woman, man and man, ducks and chickens, but for what? The only reason for a state to endorse and certify a marriage is not to insure that individuals will have a convenient sex partner for life, rather it is to promote the welfare of the products of that union, so as one day these products will grow up and become good law abiding and timely taxpaying Massachusettites.
Yeah, Massachusetts can make any law it wants about homosexual marriages. But if they honeymoon in Alabama they had better occupy separate rooms or they will be fined for first degree adultery.
Y’know, I was just sayin’ to myself, “Self, what this thread needs is a visit by Milum.”
Damn self…
How could it be adultery? If Alabama doesn’t recognize gay marriage then it’s just two single men engaging in a little legal sodomy.
Also, how could anyone prove it was “adultery” unless they could prove there was sexual activity?
Also, I find it highly dubious that Alabama would actually endorse any antiquated adultery laws anyway. :dubious:
In any case. It wouldn’t be adultery by any interpretation of the law.
If you’re honeymooning in Alabama, you have far worse problems than laws against your sexual orientation.
I meant enforce not endorse. Alabama would not enforce such a law.
That’s sort of like seeing a thread about penises and saying “What this thread needs is a visit by Jack Dean Tyler.”
Or Kay-Kay…
What’s the basis for this statement? The constitution itself says:
While the constitution lays out rights, its primary purpose seems to be clearly to form the basis of civil government, as it says in the preamble.
Do you have any particular authority in support of your claim?
Why would anyone, regardless of sexual orientation, pick Alabama for their honeymoon in the first place?
So if the Massachuetts’ Legislature does not do anything in the next 180 days gay marriage will be legal in Massachuetts and licenses to gay couples?
To stop gay marriage will the legislature have to pass an amendment to the Massachuetts Constitution?
Ah. No. This from Renee Landers, president of the Boston Bar Assocation on washingtonpost.com:
“The process for amending the constitution calls for two successive legislatures to vote favorably on an amendment and for that amendment to be submitted to the voters after the legislative action is completed. At a minimum, this process takes 3 years. The earliest such an amendment could appear on the state ballot would be November 2006.”
In the meantime such licenses would have to be granted.
post.com also had a stooge form the Family Research Council on who said this:
Peter Sprigg: "If one of the essential characteristics of marriage–that it is an institution which unites male and female–is deleted from the law, then the institution will cease to be marriage in any meaningful sense. It is the potential that a man and woman have for reproducing the human race which gives marriage its status as a public institution, not merely a private relationship. If marriage simply depended upon the existence of a private, intimate relationship, there would be no reason to prevent people from marrying a close blood relative, a child, or a person who is already married–restriction which the Court let stand today.
Furthermore, the short duration of most homosexual partnerships and lack of sexual fidelity among such partners (demonstrated by abundant research)are dramatically different from the average heterosexual marriage. If these relationships become part of the public image of what marriage involves, then both long-term commitment and sexual faithfulness as expected standards of marriage will suffer even more than they already have."
My response, which he ignored.
“How very disingenuous of your organization to use the word “research” in it’s name as if you valued real scientific investigation in any form. Admit the truth: your group starts from the predetermined p.o.v that “God hates fags” and will cite any third rate “study” you can find to further your cause. Your objections are completley rooted in your non-scientific superstitious and frankly medieval religious beliefs.”
It is not what we already have, otherwise there would be no controversy over the matter. There would be no intrusion of religious doctrine. So long as the state in charge of determining who is “really married”, the problem will exist.
Well that’s good news. It sounds like the legislature will have no choice then but to either start granting licenses or to draft some sort of civil union legislation. The sweet irony is that the very same cretins who are pushing for the anti-gay amendment will have to enact some pioneering pro-gay legislation. Hooray!
With all the heavy-hitting lawyer Dopers in this thread, I’m surprised no one has tackled this yet.
Generally, the Full Faith and Credit Clause in the Constitution requires states to honor the “public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state.” Marriage is a public act, and if you’re married in one state, all other states are generally required to recognize that marriage as legal and binding.
However, the Full Faith and Credit Clause does not require a State to apply another State’s law in violation of its own legitimate public policy. See Nevada v Hall, 440 US 410, 422-423. In other words, the Constitution does not require the application of another State’s laws when they are “obnoxious” to the forum State’s policy. See id. at 423-424 (quoting Pacific Employers Ins. Co. v Industrial Accident Commn., 306 US 493, 504 (1939)). Also, “[The Full Faith and Credit clause does not] compel a state to substitute the statutes of other states for its own statutes dealing with a subject matter concerning which it is competent to legislate.” See Pacific Employers Ins. Co., 306 U.S. at 501.
I have a strong suspicion that even if the Mass Legislature does not act to prohibit gay marriage, the Supreme Courts of a number of states will refuse to recognize gay marriages performed in Mass because gay marriage will violate their “legitimate public policies.” In support of this proposition, the US Congress’s Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 defines marriage as “a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife,” and says that no state “shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State . . . respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage . . . .”
In other words, until we get the Supreme Court of the US to decide this issue, gay marriages will likely not be recognized throughout the country.
I think this is incorrect. I think you need a majority in two consecutive legislatures, followed by a majority of the popular voters, to amend the constitution. From the Mass constitution (emphasis added):
As a result, I don’t see any way that there will be a constitutional amendment submitted to the people any time soon.
I’ve really got to learn to type faster.
Elvis, I think you might be misunderstanding what Dogface is saying. His point is that “marriage” is a religious sacrament which should not be defined in any way by the government. He’s saying that civil contracts should be granted to those who want those protections and benefits but that none of these unions need be defined as “marriage” by the government.
Is three years long enough to flood the state with enough gay residents to defeat any potential amendment once it’s put to a popular vote?