In U.S. fight over gay marriage, both sides gearing up for more battles

Nov 28, 2012 Full story: Reuters 1,144

Scott Everhart and Jason Welker hold each other before exchanging wedding vows at a comic book retail shop in Manhattan, New York June 20, 2012.

Full Story

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#48 Nov 28, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<However, it has NOT been found that the Federal govt HAS to accept the definition of the state for its own federal purposes, only that the federal cannot dictate to the state....
Again, Jane's lack of judicial scholarship shines like a beacon to imbecilles everywhere. DOMA does not tell states whether they have to recognize same-sex marriage or not. It leaves it up to them. The cases against DOMA specifically reference the federal government's refusal to recognize acts by the states that do recognize same-sex marriage.
It would be a curious holding if the scotus were to find that the states bound the federal govt. can you think of any other examples where that is the case?
The reason the federal government is bound by states' definition of marrage is equal protection. The federal government cannot mete out disparate treatment of similarly situated people, which is what DOMA does. Where two couples are married and one gets federal considerations but the other doesn't, the federal government is violating the constitution.

There are many examples where the federal government abides by state regulations. Property/casualty and life insurance would be high on that list.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#49 Nov 28, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
so was interracial marriage but you guys rely on that daily.
are you admitting you do that to confuse people?
Either both are relevant or both are not, but you cannot analogize one and not run into the other...
so are OTHER rights to marry relevant or not?
no cherry picking!
As I said, polygamy is someone else's battle. The fact is that polygamists are unlikely to agree on a set of rules that they'd like the government to enforce on their behalf: Different groups of polygamists will want different rules regarding each member's rights and responsibilities.

As soon as one of those groups actually takes the time to tell us how they'd like to be regulated, I'll be happy to consider the proposal.

“Open your eyes”

Since: Sep 09

Central Florida

#50 Nov 28, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, but in case you weren't aware, SCOTUS has already ruled that marriage is a basic civil right. When something isn't literally spelled out in our Constitution, SCOTUS uses "substantive due process." Society does change over time, ya know.
ok, then why not just end the debate and call forth a Constitutional Convention and add it to the constitution?

Why leave it to a court to try to determine a meaning? Just add it.

There, issue put to bed.

And that is what I have been saying.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#51 Nov 28, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
encouragement of one group is not oppression of another...so a solar subsidy is not oppression against wind power...
Tell that to all the same sex couples and their families currently denied all the rights, benefits, protections, responsibilities that are automatically bestowed on a "marriage". They are being oppressed with absolutely no rational basis for doing so.
Jane Dough wrote:
no sweetie pie, look at the supremacy clause...
and consider what you say out of the other side of your mouth about the federal govt and interracial marriage...
did they dictate there?
see how that does not jibe with what you are claiming?
What exactly are you babbling about? There is no contradiction dear, in the Loving case, nor in any of the others was there a question of federal recognition, just what their individual federal rights were in regards to state laws.
Jane Dough wrote:
I don't know why you "imagine" they did, but it was because the FEDERAL govt was trying to dictate to the states which the court found they cannot. However, it has NOT been found that the Federal govt HAS to accept the definition of the state for its own federal purposes, only that the federal cannot dictate to the state....
It would be a curious holding if the scotus were to find that the states bound the federal govt. can you think of any other examples where that is the case?
Um yes, every other authority dictated to the states under the 10th Amendment. Divorce, child custody, adoption, surrogacy and that's just in this discussion, there are many areas of the law where the federal government is pretty much subservient to the rules of the states. Thanks for trying.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#52 Nov 28, 2012
Kahoki wrote:
No, I am saying call for a constitutional convention and put the issue to rest. Until that is done, leave it to the states and the people.
Why? The Constitution already guarantees me a right to marry, why should we need a constitutional convention to convince those who refuse to believe it? I'd rather leave it to the already existing Constitution and be done with it.
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#53 Nov 28, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, but in case you weren't aware, SCOTUS has already ruled that marriage is a basic civil right. When something isn't literally spelled out in our Constitution, SCOTUS uses "substantive due process." Society does change over time, ya know.
and I know you ARE aware that THEN the SCOTUS literally found that gay marriage was not a basic civil right given that the current rights were related to and even based on procreation.

facts aside as usual, eh, Mona?

But were you being ignorantly pig-headed as usual or were you actually purposefully lying here?

I guess I will find out in your post to someone else...
But I will follow you....
you got a friend in me...
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#54 Nov 28, 2012
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, Jane's lack of judicial scholarship shines like a beacon to imbecilles everywhere. DOMA does not tell states whether they have to recognize same-sex marriage or not. It leaves it up to them. The cases against DOMA specifically reference the federal government's refusal to recognize acts by the states that do recognize same-sex marriage.
<quoted text>
The reason the federal government is bound by states' definition of marrage is equal protection. The federal government cannot mete out disparate treatment of similarly situated people, which is what DOMA does. Where two couples are married and one gets federal considerations but the other doesn't, the federal government is violating the constitution.
There are many examples where the federal government abides by state regulations. Property/casualty and life insurance would be high on that list.
Nice quip, but poor analysis.

The basis of the decision was related to the extent that the state's allocation of resources was impacted by the federal govt's definition.

This stuff has many levels, maybe try discussing it instead of insulting?

As much as you would love for the DOMA cases to be equal protection wins, in reality they were not (they found no fundamental right to gay marriage and no suspect classification for gays, and rational basis applied, that's 0 for 3 for you), they were federalism wins where the states got authority for themselves, not over the federal govt.

its the details you miss...

and please explain how the federal govt is bound by state determination as to insurance....
it is merely a state function, the states do not BIND the federal govt....

except in limited circumstances with medicare and medicaid...
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#55 Nov 28, 2012
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
As I said, polygamy is someone else's battle.
as I said , so was racial civil rights!
do you get what consistency is?
Ex-GOP Con

United States

#56 Nov 28, 2012
Constitution-lover wrote:
<quoted text>
No war againt gays. Just put them to death as we should. That is not war but doing Gods will...We must end evil in this the nation God created.
We should do God's will and put to death all stonecasters.
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#57 Nov 28, 2012
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>Tell that to all the same sex couples and their families currently denied all the rights, benefits, protections, responsibilities that are automatically bestowed on a "marriage". They are being oppressed with absolutely no rational basis for doing so.
<quoted text>What exactly are you babbling about? There is no contradiction dear, in the Loving case, nor in any of the others was there a question of federal recognition, just what their individual federal rights were in regards to state laws.
<quoted text>Um yes, every other authority dictated to the states under the 10th Amendment. Divorce, child custody, adoption, surrogacy and that's just in this discussion, there are many areas of the law where the federal government is pretty much subservient to the rules of the states. Thanks for trying.
what you fail to understand and I try to explain, is that in NONE of the situations you discuss does the state BIND the federal govt.
you merely name police powers where the states have more power over that issue within their state, they cannot dictate ANYTHING to the federal govt, they just has ultimate sovereignty of their state.

powers were RESERVE by the states, not dictated to ...
language here is very important and you are not with it, so maybe you should consider NOT insulting me....
Knowledge for Kahoki

Alpharetta, GA

#59 Nov 28, 2012
Kahoki wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I am saying call for a constitutional convention and put the issue to rest. Until that is done, leave it to the states and the people.
Well then; you will be tickled with this news
.
The states and the people are doing remarkably well
.
We have nine and counting
http://makeitequal.org/
disgusted american

Philadelphia, PA

#60 Nov 28, 2012
Constitution-lover wrote:
<quoted text>
No war againt gays. Just put them to death as we should. That is not war but doing Gods will...We must end evil in this the nation God created.
STFU and shove your buybull where the sun dont shine.....F u and Gawd ( the fake fairy that doesnt exist)

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#61 Nov 28, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
what you fail to understand and I try to explain, is that in NONE of the situations you discuss does the state BIND the federal govt.
They don't?
Jane Dough wrote:
you merely name police powers where the states have more power over that issue within their state, they cannot dictate ANYTHING to the federal govt, they just has ultimate sovereignty of their state.
Um dear, if a state, any state, tells the federal government tells that a couple has divorced, has child custody settled, etc, the federal government is bound to those state actions. They cannot overrule them, they cannot enforce the laws of states which may at some point say otherwise. It really is that simple.
Jane Dough wrote:
powers were RESERVE by the states, not dictated to ...
language here is very important and you are not with it, so maybe you should consider NOT insulting me....
Why, you've been attempting to insult my intelligence since you started up with your so-called reasoning? Get back to me when you have something which you confuse with a rebuttal that isn't merely a repetition of your original argument which has already been disposed of.

“Open your eyes”

Since: Sep 09

Central Florida

#62 Nov 28, 2012
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>Why? The Constitution already guarantees me a right to marry, why should we need a constitutional convention to convince those who refuse to believe it? I'd rather leave it to the already existing Constitution and be done with it.
Nooooooooooooooo

The constitution leaves it up for debate, which is what we are doing. Different interpretation.

Why leave it up for that? Why not make it clear and concise? Why let a court decide? Why let a judge try to best interpretate the meanings?

“Open your eyes”

Since: Sep 09

Central Florida

#64 Nov 28, 2012
Knowledge for Kahoki wrote:
<quoted text>
Well then; you will be tickled with this news
.
The states and the people are doing remarkably well
.
We have nine and counting
http://makeitequal.org/
Ok, I do not get what you are trying to say here. So there are 9 states at a state level have supported same sex marriage. Well, good for them.

This is why it should be brought about.

Until a constitutional amendment is created and passed. And until that point, it is a State issue.
Ravianna

Lincoln City, OR

#65 Nov 28, 2012
Gays are by definition freaks and their behavior should not be recognized by the government.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#66 Nov 28, 2012
Kahoki wrote:
Nooooooooooooooo
The constitution leaves it up for debate, which is what we are doing. Different interpretation.
Why leave it up for that? Why not make it clear and concise? Why let a court decide? Why let a judge try to best interpretate the meanings?
The debate may be ongoing, but the reality is this; the Constitution does not grant the state the authority to determine whom we may and not marry based on the sex of the otherwise legally qualified person whom we choose to be married to. There is no rational basis for such an authority and certainly no compelling interest of the state served by it. Period. There is no need for a rewrite our right is already there.

This is your right to marry too.
Mona Lott

Hoboken, NJ

#67 Nov 28, 2012
Kahoki wrote:
<quoted text>
ok, then why not just end the debate and call forth a Constitutional Convention and add it to the constitution?
Why leave it to a court to try to determine a meaning? Just add it.
There, issue put to bed.
And that is what I have been saying.
Totally unnecessary, that's why. It is SCOTUS' job to interpret the Constitution.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#68 Nov 28, 2012
Ravianna wrote:
Gays are by definition freaks and their behavior should not be recognized by the government.
That is just ever so thoughtful, mature and downright sweet of you dear. Thank you for your thoughts. Since I seriously doubt that you have anything more you are going to confuse with insight and wisdom to dispense to us lowly mortals on the subject, may I kindly suggest you go play with a chainsaw?
Mona Lott

Hoboken, NJ

#69 Nov 28, 2012
Kahoki wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok, I do not get what you are trying to say here. So there are 9 states at a state level have supported same sex marriage. Well, good for them.
This is why it should be brought about.
Until a constitutional amendment is created and passed. And until that point, it is a State issue.
Was inter-racial marriage a State's only issue?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 4 min Reverend Alan 5,219
Gay Marriage and the Limits of Tradition 7 min Rick in Kansas 1,173
Gay veterans get OK for Boston's St. Patrick's ... 8 min Fa-Foxy 23
Catholic Church Waging War on Women and Gays (Oct '07) 14 min Estelle 219,603
Gay Christians choosing celibacy emerge from th... 15 min Phyllis Schlafly ... 61
Wednesday Afternoon NE Jade Thread 16 min Righteous123 2
Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) 22 min EdmondWA 26,570
Anti-gay Tenn. billboard stirs religion debate 1 hr NorCal Native 2,781
Next gay marriage fight: religious exemptions 1 hr Frankie Rizzo 4,920
Trio to fight gay assault case at evidence hearing 1 hr Frankie Rizzo 19