Thread: BREAKING: CURRENT EVENT A Majority of Americans DO NOT support gay marriage. WAPO

Originally Posted by toddwv

Obsession.

Sez the member who abused a thread by obsessively reposting a large, identical photo every few minutes for over an hour.

Hilarious.

Originally Posted by wolfsgirl

And the constitution has this thing called the full faith and credit clause that requires all states to recognize public records from all other states.
Marriage is a public record. So a marriage in Mass has to be recognized in Miss.
DOMA blatantly goes against the constitution, and will fall, this will require same sex marriage to be recognized in every state.

LOL which is completely false

The Full Faith and Credit Clause has also been invoked to recognize the validity of a marriage. Traditionally, every state honored a marriage legally contracted in any other state. However, in 1993, the Hawaii Supreme Court held that Hawaii's statute restricting legal marriage to parties of the opposite sex establishes a sex-based classification, which is subject to Strict Scrutiny if challenged on Equal Protection grounds (Baehr v. Lewin, 852 P.2d 44, 74 Haw. 530). Although the court did not recognize a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, it raised the possibility that a successful equal protection challenge to the state's marriage laws could eventually lead to state-sanctioned same-sex marriages. In response to the Baehr case, Congress in 1996 passed the Defense of Marriage Act (110 Stat. § 2419), which defines marriage as a union of a man and a woman for federal purposes and expressly grants states the right to refuse to recognize a same-sex marriage performed in another state.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedicti...+Credit+Clause

Deal with the law on the books not what you wish it to be.

Originally Posted by texmaster

LOL which is completely false

The Full Faith and Credit Clause has also been invoked to recognize the validity of a marriage. Traditionally, every state honored a marriage legally contracted in any other state. However, in 1993, the Hawaii Supreme Court held that Hawaii's statute restricting legal marriage to parties of the opposite sex establishes a sex-based classification, which is subject to Strict Scrutiny if challenged on Equal Protection grounds (Baehr v. Lewin, 852 P.2d 44, 74 Haw. 530). Although the court did not recognize a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, it raised the possibility that a successful equal protection challenge to the state's marriage laws could eventually lead to state-sanctioned same-sex marriages. In response to the Baehr case, Congress in 1996 passed the Defense of Marriage Act (110 Stat. § 2419), which defines marriage as a union of a man and a woman for federal purposes and expressly grants states the right to refuse to recognize a same-sex marriage performed in another state.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedicti...+Credit+Clause

Deal with the law on the books not what you wish it to be.

IF the FF&C didn't apply, then why was it included in DOMA?

Section 1.

Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.
Section 2.

The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

So is marriage not a public act, or record?

Originally Posted by wolfsgirl

IF the FF&C didn't apply, then why was it included in DOMA?

Protection from something that might be tried. It is pretty common to add inclusive or exclusive language to bills to help reduce the chances of loopholes or creative legal acrobatics from invalidating the law. The full faith and credit clause has never been invoked in relation to a marriage, even when many states outlawed interracial marriages and refused to acknowledge the interracial marriages from other states.

Originally Posted by Silhouette

This just in, May 14, 2012:




The article goes on to discuss how if polling is done asking people if they prefer civil unions instead they opt for that compromise. Adding those who are opposed to gay marriage outright to those who prefer civil unions to gay marriage a clear majority is seen to be against gay marriage.

How do you feel? Vote before this topic is selectively removed from current events, which it very much is and one of the most viewed topics on PF.

So if you know that it's going to be selectively removed from current events, then why post it in current events?

Originally Posted by toddwv

So if you know that it's going to be selectively removed from current events, then why post it in current events?

Seems Sil is thumbing her nose at the Mods.

Originally Posted by Silhouette

This just in, May 14, 2012:

The article goes on to discuss how if polling is done asking people if they prefer civil unions instead they opt for that compromise. Adding those who are opposed to gay marriage outright to those who prefer civil unions to gay marriage a clear majority is seen to be against gay marriage.

How do you feel? Vote before this topic is selectively removed from current events, which it very much is and one of the most viewed topics on PF.

You're becoming a broken record with a broken message. Get help.

Originally Posted by wolfsgirl

Maybe people should mind their own business, and live their own lives.

That would be my vote. Leave your neighbors alone... and in turn you should be able to expect the same.

Originally Posted by toddwv

Obsession.

What has Calvin Klein got to do with any of it?