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

Fair faith and credit is suspended due to doma section two

 

If Massachusetts was wise and realized how much moneycould be made by jabbing proxy marriages. Meaning, nether party hasto be in Massachusetts to get married.

 

Being called homosexual does not offend me. Assuming that anyone who supports same sex marriage rights HAS to be gay does. I am as straight as can be, and here's a little not so secret, secret. The idea of having sex with another man is icky to me. But that's ok, I have plenty of women willing to have sex with me. I do have a gay friend that I send pics of female boobs to just to get under his skin lol. He thinks they're icky.

 

Legislation can not suspend Constitutional Laws. An Amendment would be required.

 

I agree. And it seems the federal court system does as well

 

As far as I know, DOMA-2 IS being challenged, it's just early in the process. Or perhaps I've been misinformed.

 

That "us what the federalcourts are doing.

 

Um. What?? LOL...

 

That is what the federal courts are doing.

 

Exactly, which is the same as legalization.
Because all a same sex couple has to do is get married while they are on vacation in Provincetown.
And their home state is forced to recognize the marriage, and forced to hear divorce pleadings if the marriage doesn't take.
And what we really have is a huge shift in public opinion that has been going on for a long time now, and it only goes in one direction, it may not reverse until it gets into the single digits and then it will find a range, but you'll have monster approval rates, and eventually no laws against same sex marriage will remain on the books.

 

Just like any other marriage. there shouldn't be an exception.

 

The question is if they're challenging it on full faith and credit or on equal protection. I think people think more of the full faith and credit that what is actually there... There is a well known and established "public policy exception" to the full faith and credit clause. Just because I have a business license to practice prostitution on Nevada, that doesn't mean I can practice in Arizona, for example. Arizona must recognize my legal employment in Nevada, but they don't have to allow me to be employed in Arizona with this particular profession. Full faith and credit does have an effect, but it is limited, and I don't know of anything that says it must be required in this particular case.

Rather, this case comes down to equal protection just as much as the others. The question is not so much if one state is required to recognize the marriages from another state, but rather if one state can selectively choose to not recognize JUST same-sex marriage despite the fact that they recognize any other marriage from other states without contest. It is that unequal treatment that raises question of equal protection and due process, and brings it under the scrutiny of the Romer decision which held that the government cannot enact laws whose sole purpose is to harm a group. Several cases have already been settled which included the review of laws that restricted the recognition of marriages from other states, and I believe this was generally the course they took.

I believe it is the strongest case for equal protection that we have, even more so than requiring states perform the marriages themselves. It's one thing for the states to try to explain why the restriction in their own laws against performing the marriages themselves are legitimate... As difficult as that has been for them, it's been even harder for states try to explain why they are willing to ignore those restrictions when recognizing marriages from other states... for all cases except same-sex couples. Selective treatment like this aimed at making it harder for just one group is exactly the kind of thing the principles of equal protection are meant to protect against, and has been held in the Romer decision to be evidence of animus.

 

State's cannot define marriage however they want to define it. Hence why a black man can marry a white woman in all 50 states.

 

We have a State equivalent to a Ninth Amendment.

 

it is insulting to try and draw a similarity to skin color with how one has sex

I cannot wake up tomorrow and become white no matter how hard I try

I can wake up and choose to not have sex or to have sex differently

 

You mean with your left hand?

 

If some "separate but equal" ruling is made....whereby Texas and Utah have to recognize the legality of gay marriage licenses from Massachusetts, Illinois, California....whatever....

the war is over. Eventually it'll become a "toothless" law to ban such licenses being given out in Dallas....if you can fly to New York, get married and come home....and Texas still has to honor them.

But that's a tough Constitutional row to hoe, because if it's about Constitutional rights....you can't make it "state-by-state".

 

So you chose to be heterosexual? At what age?

 

But you could choose to marry a person of the same race- and that is the issue in Loving V. Virginia.

The State argued that indeed anyone could choose to marry someone of the same race.

Just as you argue that people can choose whom to be sexually attracted to.

 

So I was trying to wrap my head around what would happen if the Supreme Court overturns all of the same gender marriage cases before it.

Clearly it would overturn those cases before it- but how would it affect California and Prop 8?

Prop 8 was ruled unconstitutional by a Federal Judge, and went all the way to the Supreme Court which left the ruling stand.

I think what would happen is that a new law suit would be filed to overturn the prior decision- but I don't know.

Anyone know how that would work?

 

Which has nothing to do with orientation.

 

Strawman. I am drawing no such comparison you silly troll you.

My point was that states cannot define marriage however they want to define it. That is undeniably true.

 

Mr Alis, you need to learn the definition of "strawman"

you stated, and I quote State's cannot define marriage however they want to define it. Hence why a black man can marry a white woman in all 50 states.


now, for those watching at home, please explain how you were not trying to draw a similarity to ones skin color with how one has sex.

 

Let me help

you stated, and I quote State's cannot define marriage however they want to define it.

Hence why a black man can marry a white woman in all 50 states.

First part is that a State cannot define marriage however the state wants to.
Second part is an example of a State not being able to define marriage as it wants to.

Glad to help out.

 

Let's take sec's objection and offer a hypothetical.

Could ..say...Utah....make it illegal for a woman to marry a man who only would engage in oral sex upon her...not vaginal sex? Regardless if it was his choice...or because he had suffered some trauma that effected his genitalia?