← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Pennsylvania_Dutch
Thread ID: 14540 | Posts: 10 | Started: 2004-07-15
2004-07-15 16:04 | User Profile
It seems to me that the US Constitution and Bill of Rights would allow a state or states to marry homosexuals...that homosexual marriage would be, and should be a state issue...the same with homosexual partnerships & other homosexual contracts...
This is one of the nice things about our US Constitution, it would allow for a state or states to try something out, and, if that something didn't work out, the rest of the states of our nation would not suffer.
2004-07-15 17:24 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Pennsylvania_Dutch]It seems to me that the US Constitution and Bill of Rights would allow a state or states to marry homosexuals...that homosexual marriage would be, and should be a state issue...the same with homosexual partnerships & other homosexual contracts...
This is one of the nice things about our US Constitution, it would allow for a state or states to try something out, and, if that something didn't work out, the rest of the states of our nation would not suffer.[/QUOTE]
The problem is the full faith and credit clause of the US Constitution:
[QUOTE]Article IV. 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. [/QUOTE]
Marriages and divorces traditionally have fallen into this clause. Thus, if Mass. "marries" Adam and Steve, then SC must accept it.
That's why the problem can only be addressed effectively via amending the US Constitution. Else, sodomites need only cross state lines, get "married", and then return home and insist that their home state accept the other state's legal act.
Of course, that's just legal theorizing. I don't think conservatives have the wherewithal to do anythng about this.
The simple truth is that most Americans accept to one degree or another the notion that homosexual unions should enjoy some sort of protection, and the Senate vote to stop consideration of the Constitutional Amendment this week speaks volumes about that. Such are the blessings of democwacy.
Besides, marriage is dead in American anyway, and has been for a long time. It's only that now it's become utterly apparent to all.
In truth, marriage in our culture was dealt its fatal wound by a certain adulterous English king who liked to cut the heads off his wives and who in order to justify his murderous inclinations started a well-known denomination that has long enjoyed the respect and admiration of England and indeed the entire world.
Society accepted this serial killer's whims, and re-defined Christian marriage to his order.
Even though valiant efforts were made to stop the bleeding over the centuries, they were to no avail, and the institution slowly bled to death.
It was a sloooow working out of the inevitable - the Greek tragedy set in motion by Henry VIII.
Actually, this might be one of those very well disguised blessings. Worse is better, and this is about as bad as it gets.
I'm praying for a collapse. Sure hope we get one soon.
Walter
2004-07-15 17:58 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]
I'm praying for a collapse. Sure hope we get one soon.
Walter[/QUOTE]
Me too. Never thought I'd ever say it. If God doesn't judge the United States in a most harsh and severe way within the near future, then I'm afraid....there is no God. The thing is, this country is too far gone down the slippery slope to recover on it's own to anything resembling a Constitutional Republic. However, just as in the days of Noah, before the flood, the people were 'eating and drinking, marrying and given to marriage', and so shall it be when judgement comes to the United States of America. It's gonna be sad.
2004-07-15 18:03 | User Profile
Very Roman Catholic Massachusetts is at the heart of this debate...if Massachusetts wishes to have homosexual marriage...that's fine with me.
Article IV, Section 1, also says in the next sentence, "And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof." That is what is going on in Congress now---an attempt to limit the damage.
Let's not forget, The X Amendment, either.
This will be a knock down drag out fight, for the first time in our lifetime we may actually see politicians shedding "real" blood on this issue. There are going to be fists thrown...and I do look for some big mouth mickies and the ever noisey jew to taste their own blood on this issue...which may be a positive thing...
2004-07-15 18:07 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]Marriages and divorces traditionally have fallen into this clause. Thus, if Mass. "marries" Adam and Steve, then SC must accept it.
That interpretation of the full faith and credit clause is insane (thus perfectly reasonable to any liberal judge).
It's one thing for a state to recognize a contract formed in another state if that contract is legal locally. It's another thing for a state to recognize an illegal contract, just because that contract is legal in another state.
If Mary and John can be legally locally married then the state should recognize their marriage in another state. If John and Bruce cannot be legally married locally, then the state should have no obligation to recognize their marriage from another state. Else, you have each of the 50 states getting to de facto dictate the local laws of all the other states.
Actually, I know it doesn't work like this, but it should.
The simple truth is that most Americans accept to one degree or another the notion that homosexual unions should enjoy some sort of protection, and the Senate vote to stop consideration of the Constitutional Amendment this week speaks volumes about that. Such are the blessings of democwacy.
The amendment doesn't ban homosexual marriages, it just puts in check activist judges who would impose homosexual marriage. I wouldn't blame conservatives for not supporting the Amendment because it's nearly worthless in fighting homosexual marriage.
Most Americans only think what the the media and schools have trained them to think. Not a problem with democracy, per se.
Besides, marriage is dead in American anyway, and has been for a long time. It's only that now it's become utterly apparent to all.
Homosexual marriage is a symptom of the death of marriage.
Actually, this might be one of those very well disguised blessings. Worse is better, and this is about as bad as it gets.
Things can get a lot worse.
I'm praying for a collapse.
Pray harder. There's a lot of us waiting for a new start.
Let's wait to see what the Supreme Court does with the Defense of Marriage Act.
2004-07-15 19:27 | User Profile
[QUOTE]Happy Hacker]That interpretation of the full faith and credit clause is insane (thus perfectly reasonable to any liberal judge).
It's one thing for a state to recognize a contract formed in another state if that contract is legal locally. It's another thing for a state to recognize an illegal contract, just because that contract is legal in another state.
If Mary and John can be legally locally married then the state should recognize their marriage in another state. If John and Bruce cannot be legally married locally, then the state should have no obligation to recognize their marriage from another state. Else, you have each of the 50 states getting to de facto dictate the local laws of all the other states.
Actually, I know it doesn't work like this, but it should.[/QUOTE]
The full faith and credit clause isn't about private contracts, it is about public acts. Like, for example, court judgements. If one state issues a judgement against me (provided it had jurisdiction) in your favour, then you can enforce that judgement in my home state.
Same with marriage and divorces.
And you're right, this clause does imply a tremendous amount of trust between the people who signed the Constitution that they wouldn't have to worry about one state enforcing their decisions on other states, which was justified at the time (leaving out the slavery issue) because America was overwhelmingly Christian.
But it's not anymore, and we have to accept that.
[QUOTE]The amendment doesn't ban homosexual marriages, it just puts in check activist judges who would impose homosexual marriage. I wouldn't blame conservatives for not supporting the Amendment because it's nearly worthless in fighting homosexual marriage.[/QUOTE]
I understood that it would have defined marriage as one man and one woman, which would have taken care of the rising polygamy challenge.
[QUOTE]Most Americans only think what the the media and schools have trained them to think. Not a problem with democracy, per se.[/QUOTE]
But that's exactly the problem with democracy. It gives those who brainwashed them the legitmacy the vote provides.
I've come to detest democracy.
[QUOTE]Homosexual marriage is a symptom of the death of marriage.[/QUOTE]
Ditto.
[QUOTE]Things can get a lot worse.[/QUOTE]
Perhaps I lack imagination, but what else can we have that does not now exist in theory?
It's Brave New World.
Cloning, genetic engineering of children, test tube babies, mass abortion.
I mean, what's worse than the 40 million babies murdered since 1973 through state sponsored abortion?
Walter
2004-07-15 20:17 | User Profile
...that says, that one state has to recognize homosexual marrige because another state does recognize it...even if you want to go through the legal niceties of Article IV, Section 1.
Let's not forget about Amendments IX, or X either...it's going to be a bloody mess...
2004-07-16 10:05 | User Profile
It's amusing to see all the fags and their kike patrons suddenly howlin' for states rights like Jeff Davis. After this miraculous Damascus Road conversion, I'm sure they'll agree that Loving v. Virginia was a monstrous federal usurpation that should be overturned at once.
2004-07-16 11:50 | User Profile
[QUOTE=N.B. Forrest]It's amusing to see all the fags and their kike patrons suddenly howlin' for states rights like Jeff Davis. After this miraculous Damascus Road conversion, I'm sure they'll agree that Loving v. Virginia was a monstrous federal usurpation that should be overturned at once.[/QUOTE]
Oh, yeth, of courth.
2004-07-16 13:31 | User Profile
N.B., you got it bass ackwards, the only two possibilities at this point for stopping homo marriage from becoming the law of the land, one is the move in the House of Representatives to exercise the Congressional right of oversight granted in Article IV, Section 1. If that fails the only way to stop homo marriage will be an all out states rights fight---which I very seriously doubt that the Republicoons, the party of Lincoon have any will to fight! Maybe Trent Lott, will say something and get bitch slapped again...
Matter of fact get ready to hear the jews compare homosexual civil rights with black civil rights...a theme the jews have been playing all along...:furious: