Gunco Forums banner

1 - 20 of 40 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,690 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Well, the Supreme Court refused to hear a case contesting Gay Marriage in Massachussets. And on an interesting ground: The group bringing the lawsuit had failed to demonstrate that they had been harmed in any way by gay marriage.

Which brings up the question:

There have been 3,000 gay marriages in Massachussets so far. Weren't all sorts of awful things - culturally, morally, and legally - supposed to have happened by now?

If we reached a moral nadir and I missed it, I will be tremendously disappointed.

But, seriously, folks: Has anyone here been affected by gay marriages in Massachussets? Or heard of anyone who has? I was given to understand that all sorts of awful things were supposed to happen because of the "full faith and credit" clause in the Constitution, that it would be a catastrophe for the insurance industry (awwww), etc., etc. I've heard nothing - to the point that I had been wondering whether gay marriages were happening in Massachussets or not.
 

·
Mystic Knight of the Sea
Joined
·
13,384 Posts
Dzerzhinsky,

I don't like your new name. I can't remember how to spell it, and can't figure out a shortened version. :rant:

Go ahead, and tell us about your marriage, we won't tease you about it. ;)
 

·
DADDY WARBUCKS
Joined
·
19,433 Posts
I am going to ignore that Dzershinsky stuff. If he had to change, he should have picked Beria or Twinkle Toes.

I'm going to keep calling him Smegma.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,469 Posts
Now, now Gentlemen. If you would like to explore this other side of yourselves, I have a friend for you! Javier is single.

:rofl:

Not really!!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,469 Posts
Dzerzhinsky said:
Well, the Supreme Court refused to hear a case contesting Gay Marriage in Massachussets. And on an interesting ground: The group bringing the lawsuit had failed to demonstrate that they had been harmed in any way by gay marriage.

Which brings up the question:

There have been 3,000 gay marriages in Massachussets so far. Weren't all sorts of awful things - culturally, morally, and legally - supposed to have happened by now?

If we reached a moral nadir and I missed it, I will be tremendously disappointed.

But, seriously, folks: Has anyone here been affected by gay marriages in Massachussets? Or heard of anyone who has? I was given to understand that all sorts of awful things were supposed to happen because of the "full faith and credit" clause in the Constitution, that it would be a catastrophe for the insurance industry (awwww), etc., etc. I've heard nothing - to the point that I had been wondering whether gay marriages were happening in Massachussets or not.
Good question, Aviator. How many people really have been affected? The world didn't end did it?
 

·
DADDY WARBUCKS
Joined
·
19,433 Posts
No one is quite sure how SCOTUS would rule.



Full faith and credit refers to a mutual understanding between courts of the 50 states of the United States to recognize, honor and enforce each other's actions. The doctrine is rooted in the United States Constitution.

Section one of Article four of the United States Constitution is known as the Full Faith and Credit clause. It was primarily intended to provide for the continuity between states and enforcement across state lines of non-federal laws, civil claims and court rulings. Without this clause, enforcement of state-to-state extradition, portability of court orders, nationwide recognition of legal status, out-of-state taxation, spousal and child support, and the collection of fees and fines would all be impossible without separate federal action, or a similar action by the other states.

"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."

Though courts from the lowest magistrate courts to the highest state courts practice full faith and credit on a daily basis, appeals courts in the various appellate court districts often make conflicting rulings on matters of law, which may stand in conflict until resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court or by legislative action. The Supreme Court of the United States has long recognized a "public policy exception" to the clause. If the legal pronouncements of one state conflict with the public policy of another state, federal courts in the past have been reluctant to force a state to enforce the pronouncements of another state in contravention of its own public policy. The public policy exception has been applied in cases of marriage (such as polygamy, miscegenation or consanguinity), civil judgments and orders, criminal conviction and others.

The full-faith-and-credit clause has been noted for its application involving orders of protection, for which the clause was expounded upon by the Violence Against Women Act, child support, for which the enforcement of the clause was spelled out in the Federal Full Faith and Credit for Child Support Act, and its possible application to same-sex marriage, civil union and domestic partnership laws and cases, as well as the controversial Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment. The clause has been the chief constitutional basis for the repeated attacks on the DOMA. Regardless of whether DOMA is constitutional, most legal scholars recognize that it is more probably superfluous given the public policy exception. For even if DOMA is deemed unconstitutional, the long precedence of the public policy exception weighs in against the recognition of same-sex marriage, civil unions and domestic partnerships in states whose public policy prohibits it. As of early 2004, 39 states have passed their own laws nearly all of which specifically reject same-sex marriages recognized in other jurisdictions. Many of these laws have been passed in the last few years. By taking a legal stance on the issue these states have helped inform the Supreme Court what the public policy of the various states are before the Court takes up the issue and it is left to review the constitutionality of those policies.

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia stated in his dissenting opinion to the landmark Lawrence v. Texas decision that he feared application of the full faith and credit clause to the majority?s decision in that case might destroy "the structure . . . that has permitted a distinction to be made between heterosexual and homosexual unions." If Scalia's dissenting opinion held true, the majority ruling could potentially negate the DOMA and create a legal loophole allowing same-sex marriages and obliging all other states to recognize them.

Likewise, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court case of Goodridge et al. v. Department of Public Health is being eyed by observers on both sides of the issue because of similar concerns stemming from this clause.

Supporters of the DOMA, however, have claimed that the clause could very well be used to defend the law. They say that the clause?s explicit language spelling out the role of Congress is precisely what makes the law Constitutional, without the further need for the Federal Marriage Amendment. They point out that Congress has made several laws, including those on firearms controls and safety standards, employment discrimination, disability, and rights to unionization, and environmental protection, which have all withstood Constitutional attacks on the basis of full faith and credit.
 

·
Code name: Felix
Joined
·
6,361 Posts
SD, to be perfectly honest with you, gays don't bother me at all, as a matter of fact many of our friends are. I am perfectly happy with my choice in the matter...I like women and my wife likes men, perhaps that's one of the reasons we've been together for so long and enjoy an almost perfect and healthy relationship. We don't care about their lifestyles; What goes on in the privacy of their homes is their problem, not mine. I do believe though they should be able to share some of the benefits we, regular boy-girl couples share and are not available for unmarried couples. Some of these people we know have been together longer than we have.

Now...fire away, I can take it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,386 Posts
Yep, they don't bother me in the least, doesn't affect my pay one way or the other. I try to not judge folks to much.

EDIT: If a guy wants to make love to a Volkswagon, if he don't do it in front of me then I ain't hurt.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,690 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
Thanks for the scholarly reply, Custer. Looks like how what's going on in Massachussets will affect other states and the Feds remains to be revealed and it's too soon to say whether or not gay marriage in Massachussetts will cause problems in other states. I live in Nevada, where marriage is defined in the State constitution as union between one man and one woman, and had rather presumed that Massachussetts marriages would simply be ignored here (the "public policy" exception, if I understand your post).

Actually, I think the only folks who have been harmed by gay marriage have been gay people. I think it unnecessarily brought the matter to a crisis well before our culture was ready to deal with it in a rational manner. Although I suppose that's perhaps analagous to what folks used to say about Blacks in the early 60's demanding social equality before the culture was ready to deal with that in a rational manner, too.
 

·
DADDY WARBUCKS
Joined
·
19,433 Posts
I think it was impossible for a man of good will to say the ******* of the 1960's were not entitled to civil rights.

I think it is possible for a man of good will to be against gay marriage.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,469 Posts
aviator said:
SD, to be perfectly honest with you, gays don't bother me at all, as a matter of fact many of our friends are. I am perfectly happy with my choice in the matter...I like women and my wife likes men, perhaps that's one of the reasons we've been together for so long and enjoy an almost perfect and healthy relationship. We don't care about their lifestyles; What goes on in the privacy of their homes is their problem, not mine. I do believe though they should be able to share some of the benefits we, regular boy-girl couples share and are not available for unmarried couples. Some of these people we know have been together longer than we have.

Now...fire away, I can take it.
No, Aviator I have too much respect for you to pick on you. I was just funnin' with you. I have been in my own relationship for 14 years now.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
625 Posts
I was listening to a talk show on the radio early this year and there was a lawyer talking about gay marriage. He said that he had been to a symposium or something and the whole thing was about getting lawyers to help push for gay marriage, they asked for lawyers to help ?at no cost? the advancement of gay rights and gay marriage. They were told that if they could get gay marriage passed nation wide it would benefit them all. The estimate on the number divorces by gays would increase the total number of divorces by as much as 30% and create a tremendous increase in revenue. So lawyers have a good reason to give of their time to help gays achieve they?re goal of a national law to allow gay marriage, It?ll put a load of money into their pockets. Never think that gay marriage won?t cost you anything, just think of all the law suits and insurance costs that will come about from this, we?ll all be paying extra to help cover these costs.
 

·
Gunco Irregular
Joined
·
4,323 Posts
Dzerzhinsky said:
Actually, I think the only folks who have been harmed by gay marriage have been gay people.
The fact that most states that voted on admendments banning gay marriage also banned civil unions, an idea most Americans could get behind, and one that would have protected gay couple's rights. I understand those that push the gay marriage agenda do it because they feel it's right and therefore can't worry about the possible backlash, but that is what they are going to have to deal with now.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,690 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 ·
Oldgunner said:
...The estimate on the number divorces by gays would increase the total number of divorces by as much as 30%...
When the California Supreme Court nullified each and every of the gay marriages conducted in San Francisco, the failure rate of gay marriages became twice that of straight marriages in California.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,690 Posts
Discussion Starter · #18 ·
Grendeljaeger said:
...I understand those that push the gay marriage agenda do it because they feel it's right and therefore can't worry about the possible backlash, but that is what they are going to have to deal with now.
Agreed.

And I agree with Custer that there is a world of difference between a Black's right to vote and a gay person's right to get married.

Basicly, I think this just stirred up a lot of unnecessary divisiveness within a culture that's already doing a pretty good job of becoming Balkanized. Anyone with half a brain would know that - right or wrong - gay marriage just ain't gonna happen in the USA right now. Although one good thing may come out of this: If the push to establish a Federal ban fails (as it appears to be doing), and the citizens of Massachussetts choose to retain gay marriage, what could come of this is establishment that this is an issue for each state to decide for itself. Actually, even each state adopting a prohibition against gay marriage sorta does the same thing. It's nothing I feel all that strongly about except that I do hope it doesn't become an excuse for the Feds to accrue more power.

Although I still have a problem with gays getting special protection from trashing their loving relationships by marrying one another like we straights do.
 

·
Friend of MCMXI
Joined
·
8,717 Posts
Coming from a religous standpoint, the Bible strictly prohibits gay marriages. I for one am persoanally opposed to any type of homosexual activity. If a person murders someone in the privacy of their own home, does that make it alright? If a person sells drugs, but they sell them out of your sight, does that make it alright? Any type of reasoning or rationale doesn't change Biblical teachings. The towns of Sodom and Gomorrah where destroyed with fire and brimstone because of homosexual activity. I also know people who are gay. I don't mistreat them in any way, nor do I condone anyone that believes in gay bashing. The Bible tells us not to judge, but it also instructs us to point out when people are going against Biblical teachings. There is a difference between judgement and instruction. Abomination is probably one of the strongest words used in the Bible to condemn something, and it uses this word to explain homosexual activity.

Just my 2 cents on the matter at hand.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,690 Posts
Discussion Starter · #20 ·
Lupeloff said:
Yep, they don't bother me in the least...
Well, bothers the heck out of me when I encounter a gorgeous woman who is exclusively gay. They should be required to be at least bi.

While I really can't quite understand why anyone would care whether someone is gay or straight if you don't want to have sex with them yourself, conversely when you do want to have sex with them yourself...

When I become Dictator of the Proletariat, all intelligent physically attractive women with good personalities will be required to be heterosexual or bi and will be required to have an inexplicable and unrelenting attraction towards balding middle-aged men.
 
1 - 20 of 40 Posts
Top