Originally Posted By DAR <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090601/ap_on_re_us/us_cheney" target="_blank">http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200...s_cheney</a>
Originally Posted By Mr X You mean like, this is the seventh sign of the apocalypse or something? You may be right.
Originally Posted By mele So, everybody deserves to marry whom they choose yet it should still be decided at a state level. Oookay.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt That's the exact same position Hilary Clinton took during her campaign. Barack Obama camapaigned on the same platform, saying that he believes that marriage is between a man and a woman, but supports letting individual states determine if marriage between gay and lesbian couples should be legalized. Interestingly, Barack Obama voted against a Federal Marriage Amendment and opposed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 The states have traditionally been the arbiters of marriage. Remember, even the minister says "by power of the authority vested in me by the state of..." States issue marriage licenses. The only thing is, states have also had the "full faith and credit" clause in relation to each other. Which meant, usually, that marriages performed in one state were fully recognized in all the others. Of course, that was not the case with interracial marriages for decades. Some states passed laws not only outlawing interracial marriage for themselves, but specifically saying that such marriages performed elsewhere would not be recognized there. The various state anti-gay-marriage "Defense of Marriage" Acts were, in fact, usually modeled directly on these old laws. Because they were a precedent, and they stood for decades. Eventually, SCOTUS ruled that this could not stand. I suspect the same will happen with gay marriage ultimately. But it's a good thing that certain states are okaying marriage equality for gay couples now, even if not all are, and even if the federal government doesn't recognize it yet. That will come.
Originally Posted By ecdc LOL, DAR. Nice thread title. Cheney's position is the true conservative one. Let the states decide. What troubles me is that Cheney seems to have a different perspective on something that he's personally affected by, because of his daughter. But on other topics, he seems scarily indifferent to the feelings of others because he can't relate to them like he can on this. One wonders how Cheney would feel about other issues if his daughter, instead of being gay, was in the military, or homeless, or Hispanic, etc.
Originally Posted By DVC_Pongo Why is it wrong to let states decide? Why do we even have state government at all?
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << Why is it wrong to let states decide? >> I think the issue is too broad to allow a state-by-state determination. The marriage contract has federal consequences. Income tax filings, spousal benefits for social programs like SSI, and a host of other legal considerations at the federal level need to be decided at the federal level rather than letting a state determine how it's done. For example, Iowa allows gay marriage. Does this mean the federal government treats gay spouses in Iowa the same as hetero spouses? Right now, the federal government does not. But Iowa says that all marriages are equal. At some point, the federal government has to weigh in or we end up with a total mess.
Originally Posted By mele I don't think it's right for people to be able to vote on whether or not other citizens deserve equal rights. Either all citizens have inalienable rights or none of us do. Seems un-American to assume that only some people are worthy of it, imo. From the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that *all Men* are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." (Of course we could debate all day whether or not getting married is really the path to happiness or not.) ;-)
Originally Posted By DAR Normally I am a big proponent of states rights, I think you take care of your business in house. It's not anyone elses right to but in. That would be like me telling ecdc to give his kids a big bowl of ice cream right before they go to bed. He'd probably tell me that it wouldn't be beneficial for his kids health. Not to mention he'd face the wrath of his wife. (ecdc I don't know if you've faced the wrath of your wife and I'm not married but most married have faced the wrath of their wife). But if I told him he should feed the kids some vegetables as a snack before dinner, he might not think I'm crazy you know. And would see the benefits of his kids getting a healthy snack. I think that's the challenge for the opponents of gay marriage, trying to convince them that everyone wins in this case.
Originally Posted By DAR And after reading what I wrote I think I may just confused myself. But hopefully everyone got the gist(because I might need it explained).
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt "At some point, the federal government has to weigh in or we end up with a total mess." Exactly. The problem with Proposition 8 is that it violates the 14th Amendment. States do have rights, and should exercise them, but as mele said, our civil rights should not be up to voters to decide. "But hopefully everyone got the gist(because I might need it explained)." Sorry DAR, but you lost me.
Originally Posted By piperlynne I believe that states should have their own laws about marriage as it always has been. However, where the legal/constitutional issue strikes me the most is DOMA and the fact that it basically flies in the face of "full faith and credit". I believe that Prop 8 does violate our Constitution under the 14th amendment however in restricting the right to marry given only to a certain group of citizens. Where the 14th amendment states that "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Quite frankly, DOMA and any law that restricts the right of citizens to marry based on gender (which it does for one of the parties involved in a gay marriage)flies directly in the face of that part of 14. So, I think there are two legal challenges to come - 14 and "full faith and credit". IMHO - these "gay marriage" laws in the states should be moot. What needs to be examined are the constitutionality of laws restricting a legal right that only applies to some. And precludes marriage based on sex, gender, race etc. Do I want to legislate through SCOTUS - Nope. I just want laws that are obviously prejudiced and unconstitutional examined and corrected.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< From the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that *all Men* are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." >>> Yet, many of the writers and signers of the Declaration of Independence owned slaves at the time.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< The problem with Proposition 8 is that it violates the 14th Amendment. >>> Says who? I'm not aware of any court of competent jurisdiction that has made such a finding.
Originally Posted By mele <<Yet, many of the writers and signers of the Declaration of Independence owned slaves at the time.>> Yup, and they probably meant just "men" and not "women", too. Amazingly, it seems that some people are okay with this sort of hypocrisy still being constitutionally allowed in this country.
