The "Final Decision" out of the US Supreme Court...could come this Fall-

Um, that was my point. There are already lawsuits.

 

That's a ridiculous assessment, since it's the states that provide full faith and credit. States are the regulators of legal marriage. Without their sanction there's nothing to be provided full faith and credit.

Obviously, people can make agreements without involving the government. But they can't seek enforcement of those agreements without involving government. My husband and I consider ourselves married, with or without state sanction; presently without, thanks to my state's ban on recognizing our union. I'm fully aware that without that state sanction, we cannot force other state governments or the federal government to recognize our marriage. There is no record of it, no legal proceeding for other states to provide full faith and credit. We have no recourse if some dispute should arise between us concerning our "gentleman's agreement". It is not legally binding.

 

I agree to disagree. Marriage is a private Act and natural right; it is Only commuted to a public Act for full faith and credit purposes.

 

Bull.

"I want government out of marriage" is a throwaway line by people trying to pretend they are "libertarians", not anti-gay.

Since government will NEVER "get out of marriage"....marriage licenses, tax laws, etc. They are claiming they support something THEY know will never happen....as a means of attacking marriage equality.

You're able to spot this because they make no EQUIVALENT push or protest or form any organizations to "Get Gov't out of marriage"...as they do to prevent gay marriage rights. Do they????

 

You have to remember Jeff....in sec's mind..."Anybody who supports gay rights....is gay."

To him, there are no heterosexuals who support gay rights, so naturally since you do....you must be homosexual.

 

I understand your point, but I think that the Supreme Court will take the case.

My interpretation is that there are enough Justices who will oppose any gay marriage that just letting the lower court rulings stand is unlikely.

I think the Court will take the case, because those judges will not want to automatically let those lower court rulings stand.

Then we will have the usual Conservative/liberal split split on the court- with the wild cards being Kennedy- as usual- and I think also Roberts.

And yes- I am not confident that the Supreme Court will vote the right way- but I am hopeful. The Prop 8 decision I think was a punt to allow the court more time to see how the issue was going to play out legally and publicly.

With every additional court coming to the same conclusion, it will be harder and harder for the swing Justices to ignore the consensus of the lower court judges.

I don't know about you- but I can't ever remember an issue quite like this- with case after case of Federal judges over turning State laws/constitutions- essentially unanimous consensus- almost always there are conflicting decisions- think of the ACA.

 

It is POSSIBLE the Court could go with "de facto legalization", using the Constitution's "full faith and credit" clause. In other words, declare that a Massachusetts marriage licence (for a gay couple) has to be honored in Texas, even though Texas doesn't allow its clerks of court to give licenses to gay couples.

So, a gay couple in Texas fly to Boston....get married....and return home to Dallas....and Boom.....they are "married according to the State of Texas".


This however, raises issues....most predominantly a near-"Jim Crow" or "separate but equal" ruling. IOW, why should a Texas gay couple HAVE to go to Boston to get a marriage license.....isn't that a violation of the US Constitution's "equal protection" clause, which trumps state law which would violate it.

The Court's conservatives are in a bad way....as many of the lower court judges...have used ANTONIN SCALIA's own words to strike down gay marriage bans.

 

But remember- if you point that out, then there is the passive aggressive response "well why does it offend you to be called homosexual"

 

Exactly....but if you DARE call them homosexual....they take it as an insult and Report it....thus contradicting their own passive aggressive comment.

Funny, huh?

(BTW PM coming to you)

 

yay, yet another post discussing a forum member

- - - Updated - - -

yay, and another post discussing a forum member

- - - Updated - - -

yay, and another one and BTW, why no ask the mods how many insults at me I report

I actually find it hysterical and even more entertaining that the insults remain

 

Oh such crocodile tears......such faux outrage that we would discuss a board member....

From someone who responded to me with this line:

I know of nobody who gives a rats behind that you engage in sex differently than 96.4% of adults..

You had no problem with posting about a poster(me) in that case. You only seem to have a problem about it when the discussion is about you.

Still waiting to hear from you about specifically about how you think I engage in sex differently than 96.4% of adults.

 

sec, it's pretty clear from your use of the word "YOU" in your "I know of nobody who gives a rats behind that you engage in sex differently than 96.4% of adults.." response to JEFF....

that you are discussing him.

You love just love The Rules...as long as YOU get to break them.

 

correct because the exchange was between the 2 of us and my pointing out that how you choose to live your sex life is of little concern to most people.

Now, if I was to simply discuss another forum member with you, such as what I've applauded you for doing, then that's a horse of a different color

faux outrage

how many times must I remind you, you can't go toe to toe with me so stop frustrating yourself.

 

and another one who will not learn

gorny and jeffy discussing sec


sec and jeffy having an exchange

hmmm

 

So can you and I have an "exchange"....where I get to discuss your sex life and my opinion of it?

Or is that only your personal perogative?

 

do heterosexuals have those rights? if you want to marry your dad, that is a fight you will need to take up on your own....

but you do bring up a good point, should we allow anonymous adoptions as people might marry their brother\sister\mother\father and not even know it - and we know the world would explode if it ever did happen - then again, in the beginning the bible says... there was incest

.

 

Frustrate? LOL........like I said:

Oh such crocodile tears......such faux outrage that we would discuss a board member....

From someone who responded to me with this line:

I know of nobody who gives a rats behind that you engage in sex differently than 96.4% of adults..

You had no problem with posting about a poster(me) in that case. You only seem to have a problem about it when the discussion is about you.

Still waiting to hear from you about specifically about how you think I engage in sex differently than 96.4% of adults.

 

Remember, JEFF....you and sec are involved in an "exchange", where it's "okay" for him to discuss his opinion of YOUR sex life.....


I wonder though, if he'll allow YOU to opine on HIS sex life???

 

The way the Constitution is written, bans on same-sex marriage seem illegal.

The right to marry is seen as a natural and Constitutional right, and restricting it based on sex seems to be arbitrary and capricious.

 

Well I am not curious as to whether his sex life is different from 96.4% of Americans.

 

But remember, "the Rule" is....you can offer your opinion of his sex life, as long as you are engaged in an "exchange" with him. Same as he can with you.



BTW, back on topic.....you notice that few of those antipathetic to gay rights....deny the premise of my OP.

I wonder if any of them still have hope that the USSC will be able to rule in favor of gay marriage bans, despite all the lower court rulings....some of which have used ANTONIN SCALIA's own words in their rulings.

 

yay, still discussing another forum member

 

Still waiting to hear from you about specifically about how you think I engage in sex differently than 96.4% of adults.

 

sec.....is this an "exchange" between you and me....because, again, I have some theories about your sex life.

 

The state doesn't see it that way.