The Supreme Court hears oral arguments in late March to decide the fate of Proposition 8, an amendment to the state constitution approved by 52 percent of California voters in 2008. It banned same-sex marriages in the state and went into effect after 18,000 gay couples were legally married earlier that year.

Considering California is 99% liberal, so what if the people voted? Why BOTHER to vote?????????

Republicans today should take note, he had his priorities right: "Give me Liberty, or Give me Death!" - Republicanism speech by Patrick Henry 1776.

Jayfos, why is it the responsibility of the White House to get Congress to do the jobs they were elected to do? Congress passes legislation, not the President.

Why is conservative California causing all this trouble? Wait a minute, did I say that right?

Those damn GOPer's. Wait a minute, something doesn't seem right here.

Can't those damn liberals in California get over being so homophobic? That's better.

The Supreme Court hears oral arguments

Regarding gay marriage!?! I hope they did it off camera as that would have the potential to traumatize tens of millions!

Well, Steveorevo, you made a great case for gay rights--"give me liberty...." The Constitution does not gurantee equal rights to all EXCEPT certain people.

Steve#'s, perhaps you care to explain exactly HOW gay marriage or someone's gay-ness affects you personally. Does it keep you from doing what you believe? Does it keep you from attending church or reading the Bible? Does it take away your individual freedom and rights? Does it get you fired from your job or not allow you to visit your loved one in a hospital? All those things are denied to gays simply because they are gay. But gay rights do not affect you even a tiny bit.

The whole Proposition 8 issue is a perfect example of why the Founding Fathers despised any notion of democracy for this country. It is why they made every important position in the government --- President, VP, Cabinet officers, Senators, the Supreme Court, etc --- are appointed instead of directly elected. In fact, the only elected leadership envisioned was the House of Representatives which served the sole purpose of keeping de facto slavery in place forever --- and they gave the House the shortest possible term of office.

Ambrose Bierce had it nailed when he described "democracy" as "four wolves and a lamb discussing what to have for lunch." In a democracy, a majority will always use its power to strip rights from others and to silence opposition.

And for the "biblical" people, a biblical marriage involves multiple wives and strict rules about what to do with your brother's widow. In a biblical marriage, a woman cannot divorce her husband, but a husband can easily divorce his wife without even having to have a reason. And if you keep reading about it, it just continues to get worse.

If you are against gay marriage, don't marry one. Other than than, there is no other issue to be considered.

Steve-452464

Too bad Fiesty because you will be going back after this vote.

i am loving this obsession with Fiesty ! She definitely has got a lot of followers who claim to "hate" her but still religiously follow her to every thread she is on ! amazing !

As far as the sick issue of gay marriage, I'd personnally rather see the FEDS take em all and shiop em over to Saudi. Let the sick f#$* see what kind of cooperation they get from the Royal family over their! LMAO

i hear Saudi is nice this time of year, why don't you try living there ? they'd love to have you :) and i will help you pay for the trip :)

if you plan to live here, you should plan on equal rights for all citizens. if you don't like it ? let me know, i will even help you pack :)

Discrimination must end.....period. If the will of the people was to allow discrimination against black people then Republicans would be all for it (or are for it).

As for the economy, Republicans have done nothing, have minimized how this will effect the nation.

I love love LOVE how some of you think its ok to vote on freedoms. I'm sure want to vote on the black people getting freedom from slavery and women to get the vote.

The economy is the jurisdiction of congress.

Yet Obama said he would focus on it like a laser. So did he over step his bounds or was he just posturing?

If the will of the people was to allow discrimination against black people then Republicans would be all for it (or are for it).

wow Moron, Republicans are the ones that supported the Civil Rights movement in the 1960's and Remember it was a Republican president that introduced the Emancipation Proclomation.

IM all for education, we can start with Eric

Yet Obama said he would focus on it like a laser. So did he over step his bounds or was he just posturing?

If he was trying to pass a budget via executive order, than yes. Has he done that?

Furthermore, YOU should study history. First, the democratic party in the early to mid 20th century was split into two parts, the Dixiecrats and the Northern Democrats, (your FDR'S and JFK'S). When the Northern Democrats supported, passed and signed into law the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act, the Dixiecrats left the party completely, joining the opposite party in protest.

To compare current political ideologies to those from 150-50 years ago is illogical, at best.

You really should invest in a new helmet.

I got sunshine on a clouudy day
When it's cold outside, I've got the month of May
I guess you say, WHAT can make me feel this way?
My girl, uh, my boy, my trans-sexual, uh my bisexual, uh whatever.

@eric, isn't that 2 trillion supposed to occur over 10 years?

technically that isn't thus far

we do know however that he did cut the budget to house illegal aliens waiting for hearings...to an even less amount that what was in sequestration

Actually, in most songs like that you can adjust the pronouns so that it works for just about everyone.

Focused like a laser on the economy, this Administration is, focused like a laser.

Focused like a lazy bum, er I mean laser beam.

I was wondering when the "Gay Advocate General" Sarah would show up!

AND, I still have a whole 50 minutes before I have to leave. Care to take a shot at actually discussing the issue with me?

Sue,

Oh for the love of Pete! Why doesn't straight marriage lead to any of that? There's your answer why gay marriage won't!

@serious,

"Not only has the president cut the deficit by $312 billion during his first term (so far), but he's cut the deficit by $200 billion in the past year alone. And the CBO projected that the 2013 Obama budget, if enacted as is, would shrink the deficit to $977 billion -- a four year total of nearly $500 billion in deficit reduction."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/repeat-after-me-obama-cut_b_1955561.html

@suekrose,

I hate slippery slope arguments. Nobody is asking to marry their brother or sister or whatever.

Back to homosexual marraige. My copy of the Constitution does not give the Feds any jurisdiction over marraige of any sort. Seems to be up to the States. Even if you go at it from the Contract Clause. Damn that pesky Constitution anyway!

That's the thing, if the constitution doesn't weigh in on discrimination then states could decide to discriminate against blacks, latinos, etc.

Might as well go all the way:

• Make having multi-wives OK.
• Make having multi-husbands OK.
• Make running around nude at the grocery store OK.
• Make smoking pot in school OK.
• Make kindergarten kids attend sex education classes OK.
• Make bank repossessed homes be given to Illegal Aliens (Immigrants) OK.
• Make cheating on Income Tax Returns OK (since HUNDREDS of elected Congressional Representatives do it anyway).
• ....et al.

Can I play?

If they keep assault rifles legal, in keeping with the 2nd Amendment they may as well go all the way:

• Make fully auto machine guns legal
• Make it legal to own stinger anti-aircraft missiles and rocket propelled grenades.
• If you have the bucks, you should be able to buy your fully armed F-35 fighter, B-2 bomber.
• Get together and go in with a group of your friends and buy your own aircraft carrier or Trident submarine.
• If you buy the Trident submarine, it is only fair they should sell you the nukes that go with it! After all, these items are classifies as "arms" and the Second Amendment is all about "arms. The word "gun" is nowhere to be found in the Second Amendment.

Nuke,

Of course marriage isn't in the Constitution, a LOT of things that we are legally allowed to do aren't in the Constitution, because the Constitution doesn't enumerate OUR rights, it LIMITS and enumerates the powers of the government. The only time the Constitution addressed citizen behavior and not government behavior was prohibition, and that didn't work out too well. So, what IS in the Constitution are limits to government infringement of our privacy, and equal protection. Incorporation of equal protection through the 14th Amendment prohibits the state governments from legal discrimination against certain protected classes, one of which is GENDER.

DOMA is completely based on gender discrimination. It says nothing about sexual orientation, it says marriage is limited to a man and a woman. Ergo, a gay man and a gay woman can marry, while two straight men couldn't. It also attempts to create a loop hole around the Full Faith and Credit Clause, allowing states to NOT recognize contracts made in other states where they are legal, i.e. CA. Since that is completely contradictory to the Full Faith and Credit Clause, which is in the Constitution, which is the Supreme Law of the land, preempting both federal statues like DOMA and state constitutions by the use of the Supremacy Clause which is also in the Constitution, , THAT is completely unconstitutional.

To compare current political ideologies to those from 150-50 years ago is illogical, at best

...funny though its ok to label anyone that isnt an Obama/Lenin supporter a racist and secretly want to oppress the blacks like 50-150 years ago...So i take you see my point....

The logic was appropriate given the illogic of the original statement.

Yet Obama said he would focus on it like a laser. So did he over step his bounds or was he just posturing?

If he was trying to pass a budget via executive order, than yes. Has he done that?

Are you going to answer my question. You claim its not Oblamo's responsibility then why does he interject with his 'I'M going to focus on the economy like a laser' to the effect.

Will of the people? More like tyranny of the majority.

The people can't vote to violate the constitution.

@suekrose, why is it big brother's responsibility to determine what consenting adults do with their lives in the privacy of their homes? If we start letting big brother dictate what freedoms we have to live our lives, that slippery slope will lead to government forcing us to only marry members of the opposite sex, eat our vegetables every day, attending state sponsored churches and re-education camps, and forcing preventative health-care/socialized single-payer measures on us. Surely you don't think expanding big government to have ever more control over our lives is the answer?

Lil Michelle and White Collar Auto: Since when is government to be used as a tool to enforce church doctrine? What happened to the separation of church and state that we were guaranteed in our constitution? Freedom of religion, and freedom FROM religion?

It is as arrogant for one to believe that man has the ability to prevent life as it is to believe that he can prevent death. In both instances he can only delay the inevitable, at best. In scientific terms, when we are born, we are literally born into a body in motion. And as everyone knows Newton's law of motion is that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Therefore life cannot be prevented from happening, just as surely as death will take every last one of us in this form we recognize as man.

My theory means that I have the right, as an American citizen, to voice my concern that my religious rights are being violated, as my science is every bit a part of my soul as your black book is. My God is every bit as real as yours, even if I choose to call Him by another name; even if I choose to create what I call Him for myself and no other. I should still be extended the same courtesy and have the same rights that every other person of every other faith has, as we all have, as free Americans.

It is from this platform of religious freedom that I, as a free religous American, can defend in good faith, my support of gay marriage.

Because I believe that homosexual/bisexual/lesbian activity occurs as any Designer/Creator of this magnificent planet would plan in, that when any species begins to consume more resources than the environment can provide, it would stop reproducing. Life is inevitably conceived, at times, in times of great abundance then subsequently born into times of drought and famine. Overpopulation is not inevitable. If God designed man, or any species, to automatically stop the reproduction process naturally in leaner times so that resources are more abundant for those of the species chosen to move life forward. Therefore, when you assail LGBT, you may actually by slapping the face of the very God you pray to every Sunday. These people are yielding to your yearning to procreate by allowing you the resources that they themselves will not need. Wouldn't that just be a kick in the nuts? Imagine after all that hand-wringing and preaching down here on Earth, the truth is that God made gays for just that purpose, and you're battling implementation of God's plan? Before you just send some jackoff statement in reply, re-read my words carefully.

Nukeman, BEST argument on here! It should (and under the Constitution MUST) be left to the states!!

Sarah, since Obama has been the most prolific with Executive Orders, why stop now? As far as the budget goes, the GOP is holding out because they know that the wasteful spending will not be cut, and that is what must be cut to balance our budget. It's so elementary, but since the Fat Cats in Washington refuse to do so (and I would imagine there are some Republicans to blame here as well as Democrats) the President decides to use fearmongering as his preferred methodology of running a nation. I've had enough and can't wait until the next election cycle!

Isn't government "a tool"....... :-)

@hypocrisy1776 Live your life!!! No consequences at all!! No morals, no common sense, no accountability. That's exactly what our President wants. You should be happy. Why are you questioning me?? You should be rejoicing!!

Steve - the "sicko" here is clearly you. Your intense hatred of people not demented like you is so sad - but totally Republican.

Oh, and more than half of Americans believe gays should have totally equal rights. Most of us aren't frightened of people who are different than we are. It's called letting people live and we're perfectly fine with it!

MER1962

Nukeman, BEST argument on here! It should (and under the Constitution MUST) be left to the states!!

Sarah, since Obama has been the most prolific with Executive Orders, why stop now? As far as the budget goes, the GOP is holding out because they know that the wasteful spending will not be cut, and that is what must be cut to balance our budget. It's so elementary, but since the Fat Cats in Washington refuse to do so (and I would imagine there are some Republicans to blame here as well as Democrats) the President decides to use fearmongering as his preferred methodology of running a nation. I've had enough and can't wait until the next election cycle!

um no.....sorry...so Boo Hoo Hoo on you!!!

Eric, so you are saying he could have racked up 7 trillion in debt over 4 years instead of 5.8 trillion? LOL. You Libs and your thinking that not spending money you don't have is actually saving money. It is sure easy to make believers out of some.

MER,

Nukeman, BEST argument on here! It should (and under the Constitution MUST) be left to the states!!

You say that, yet haven't presented why any of the Constitutional arguments brought up in post #1.45, fail.

Sarah, since Obama has been the most prolific with Executive Orders, why stop now?

Well, you're dead wrong on that one. Compare Obama to FDR...

Obama-

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/obama.html

FDR-

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/roosevelt.html

Second, that's a rhetorical talking point and doesn't address an actual issue.

Love is love. And if two consenting adults want to get married, whether it's two men or two women, by all means, let them. It is discrimination not to. Blacks and whites once couldn't marry. That means my sister, who's white, wouldn't have been able to marry my BIL, who's black, if this were the 1960's. My brother is so warped on the issue however. He doesn't believe gays should be able to marry but thinks polygamy is A-ok. (FACE PALM)

Here is the change we need.

Marriage should be between the religious institution the persons belongs to. The institution can choose to or not to marry whomever they choose.

Unions (previously called marriage) are when you sign a government contract legally forming a union between 2 people as the government allows.

There problem solved, remove the word marriage from the contract language. If someone wishes to be married by the "church" then they do that seperately from their legal contract. Why is this so difficult?

The economy is the jurisdiction of congress. The case against DOMA is going to the SCOTUS.

Ok...the role of the Executive Branch is to ENFORCE the laws, not deem which to enforce and which to ignore based on political views. Congress makes the laws...and if they are "unconstitutional", it is up to the citizenry to bring the issue to the SCOTUS, not the Executive Branch.

Obama ordering the federal government to not enforce federal laws is NOT within his scope of authority under the Constitution; it is, in fact, a dereliction of his office.

emery... try research in the law library.. all those people are permitted to prepare and submit briefs to the SC or any court.. stop focusing on things of which you no nothing and further your educationh

Ok...the role of the Executive Branch is to ENFORCE the laws, not deem which to enforce and which to ignore based on political views. Congress makes the laws...and if they are "unconstitutional", it is up to the citizenry to bring the issue to the SCOTUS, not the Executive Branch.

First and foremost...

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

As soon as you can make a valid, legal case for the Constitutionality of DOMA, you'll have a point, however I won't hold my breath.

Until then, he's doing EXACTLY what the oath decrees.

Honest,

You're confusing marriage and Holy Matrimony. People get married everyday without invoking any religion or God. Plus, we were getting married before any religion existed.

Pigotry: "God created Adam & Steve, and later on the same day also created Eve."

Only in your sick perverted world. Bend over pig here comes boss hog.

@Sarah. Thanks. A logical explanation. So ANY law passed by Congress regarding marraige would be Un-Constitutional out of the gate? If so I believe we are in violent agreement.

When will people begin to realize that homsexuality is, by default, discrimination based upon gender as well as the very intolerance that it claims to fight against in the first place? There ARE more arguments against the legalization of this form of hate speech than what the Bible says, people. People need to be wise and realize that if we do not take a stand against the legalization of hate speech that discrimination based upon gender, as in the opposite gender, and pro-heterosexual people will be discriminated against due to THEIR sexual orientation, but wait because there is more, folks! When the heterophobes get their wish, what will happen? What will happen is that the various factions of the LGBTTIQ communities will have infighting within their ranks and butch and femme gays and lesbians will be at war within their own camps as well as the camps of each other and then humanity will truly be doomed. Be forewarned, United States of America, every nation that has legalized homosexuality has either ceased to exist or is currently on its way to cease to exist and that said nations have dramatically DECREASED their influence upon the world stage. This is not a lie, nor is this based upon statistics and historical bias, revisionism, or elitism, this is what REALLY has went on to EVERY society that has accepted and legalized such behavior in their lives. Furthermore, per capita, heterophobes have more criminal activities and diseases, particularly sexual diseases than the general population. Furthermore, when people speak of diseases, then they need to realize that heterophobes could very well be considered as terrorists and that they should be charged with possession of weapons of mass destruction as well as illegal possession of biological and chemical warfare agents to reflect such facts. If we are truly serious about fighting terrorism, then one must truly consider all possibilities of terrorism and, sadly, heterophobia is another form of terrorism that is fought by an army of militant terrorist deviants that has played the game far better than any other opponent in history. Speaking of history, if we repeat it, then we are certainly doomed.

Why not just grant them Civil Union statis, with all the rights and privileges that Marriage provides. That way the too can pay the same (marriage) penalty couples have had to pay for years. It seems funny to me that gays want a religious function to unite them, while not wanting the religion that supports it. The problem with the states deciding the issue is if they loose they will have to vote on it year after year, until they get it to pass, then the option is closed. Chances are a state that appoves gay marriage would not have the chance to remove it. I too am surprised that Obama hasn't made an excutive order passing it.

Sarah-3043284: "As soon as you can make a valid, legal case for the Constitutionality of DOMA, you'll have a point, however I won't hold my breath.

Until then, he's doing EXACTLY what the oath decrees."

No he isn't! The Executive Branch does NOT and should NOT interpret nor rule on the Constitutionally of laws. Their job is to defend the laws of the land no matter what their personal opinion(s) may be.

So, Olivia, love is love...so, let gays go live and love together; I don't care if they do that. But, they want to get married because they don't want to miss out on any of the bennies....insurance, tax advantages, etc., and those of us who think that their lifestyle violates obvious laws of biology and anatomy damned well don't want to be forced to pay for their goodies!

As a single person, if this passes, I hope it will end me having to pay higher taxes so married couples can pay less. I have to maintain a home and pay all my bills and everything else just as they do, but I only have one income to do so. I have one income and higher taxes and married couples have two incomes and lower taxes - that just doesn't right to me!

Nuke,

Any law that discriminates based on a protected class, i.e. race, religion, gender, national origin, where the government can't show a compelling reason that passes strict scrutiny for said discrimination. Yes, that's unconstitutional.

Any other law regarding marriage, i.e taxes, probate, survivor ship, insurance, is fine. It just has to not be discriminatory. Why the Feds would get involved in that isn't really applicable. THAT part should be left to the state, the Full Faith and Credit Clause then ensuring that those marriages performed in another state are still valid.

3Thirty,

Obama isn't going to don a black robe and hop on the court for this case. There are legitimate Constitutional questions, ergo he's allowing the court to rule.

Love is love. And if two consenting adults want to get married, whether it's two men or two women, by all means, let them. It is discrimination not to. Blacks and whites once couldn't marry. That means my sister, who's white, wouldn't have been able to marry my BIL, who's black, if this were the 1960's. My brother is so warped on the issue however. He doesn't believe gays should be able to marry but thinks polygamy is A-ok. (FACE PALM)

As a society, we have laws against marriage based on many differing criteria. To say that we can't "ban" marriage because of how people "feel" is ludicrous...we do it all the time and people advocating gay marriage are almost to a person against incest between consenting adults.

Being gay is not a physical trait like one's race. Banning marriage based on race is discriminatory. Banning marriage because of one's sexual urges and their targets is COMPLETELY open to regulation...because it's a behavior and not a physical trait.

To say that one's sexual orientation is a protected class is ludicrous...we don't protect pedophiles and their sexual orientation is not so much about men/women but age. We treat pedophiles are socially repugnant...yet their "orientation" should not be an issue unless it's acted upon and someone is victimized. Additionally, we treat teachers who sleep with their students as socially repugnant yet only a few years ago, songs like "Hot for Teacher" were mainstream advocacy of the fantasy of adolescent males wanting to bang their hot teachers. These adolescents are now "victims"...which, if anyone knows anything about horny, teenage boys...is ludicrous.

Equating discrimination by race to discrimination against someone because of their sexual attractions is ludicrous. One is based on immutable physical traits...the other based on mental perceptions of the individual.

"There is NO way anyone should "Urge" the supreme court on how to vote."

BS. Ever hear of the Office of Solicitor General?? Presidents do that all the time and just about every president since Washington has.

@Al in Visalia CA

After all, these items are classifies as "arms" and the Second Amendment is all about "arms. The word "gun" is nowhere to be found in the Second Amendment.

Lets see from the actual Second Amendment:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The word "arms":

A weapon, arm, or armament is a device or equipment used in order to inflict damage or harm to enemies or other living beings, structures, or systems. Weapons are used to increase the efficacy and efficiency of activities such as hunting, crime, law enforcement, self-defense, and warfare. In a broader context, weapons may be construed to include anything used to gain a strategic, material or mental advantage over an adversary.

So, despite it saying "arms", it is referring to guns or any firearm. Since we have no need for swords or maces, as they are inefficient and inconvenient to both perpetrators and victims defending themselves, guns are the primary "right" in this sense.

Do I agree that people should own combat riffles? I honestly don't know. While I can see some valid uses for them, I am not so sure that EVERYBODY should have one.

"Focused like a laser on the economy, this Administration is, focused like a laser."

Well -- I know this is difficult for you ditto-heads to understand since you're not capable of it, but MOST people can focus on more than one thing at a time. It's called multi-tasking and it's very common in the 21st century.

@honest...and if the 2 people involved aren't overly religious or actively so...are they less married? Marriage is a right all should be able to participate in. Separate is NOT equal!

@citizen,

Obama is at least trying to reduce the increase. We wouldn't be here without Republicans cutting taxes and going to war twice while screaming "deficits don't matter". Also, Obama has had to deal with Republican obstruction to getting the economy back on track the entire time.

TheKhanKubla

As a single person, if this passes, I hope it will end me having to pay higher taxes so married couples can pay less. I have to maintain a home and pay all my bills and everything else just as they do, but I only have one income to do so. I have one income and higher taxes and married couples have two incomes and lower taxes - that just doesn't right to me!

what an idiot....married peeps pay MORE taxes....please educate yourself....SHEESH!!!

As soon as you can make a valid, legal case for the Constitutionality of DOMA, you'll have a point, however I won't hold my breath.

Until then, he's doing EXACTLY what the oath decrees.

Honest,

You're confusing marriage and Holy Matrimony. People get married everyday without invoking any religion or God. Plus, we were getting married before any religion existed.

lol. The Constitution has suffered immeasurable harm by Obama that has nothing to do with whether gays can marry or not. Warrantless wiretaps, ordering the killing of American citizens without due process, unwarranted surveillance of the citizenry without probable cause...the list could go on and on. And shut it with the "that's Bush's fault" non-sense....Obama not only renewed the Patriot Act, he amped it up.

So....protecting the Constitution is not really high on Obama's list so let's just stop right there with that nonsense. He wants to use the guise of protecting the Constitution to subvert it...and dupes like you buy it hook, line and sinker.

Now, in the case of DOMA....he is NOT protecting the Constitution by operating outside his constitutional authority. The President does NOT have the authority, under the Constitution, to order duly legislated federal laws enacted by Congress to be "ignored"....period.

He gets away with it because lemmings like you don't care what he does so long as he advances your political views.

Yeah, you didn't make the case for DOMA being unconstitutional. If you can't do that, than DOMA is unconstitutional, and by upholding it Obama wouldn't be protecting the Constitution, he'd be violating it.

So your case...

Sarah, I know he's not going to sit with the court but he is trying to influence the court's upcoming decision just as he did with "Obamacare." He has also previously told his Attorney General to NOT prosecute any cases involving DOMA. That is a violation of his oath.

"Speaking of the economy, what are John Boehner and the GOPTPers doing about it these days? Clue: the GOPTPers are once again shoving it over the cliff because they do not know how to put the breaks on what they voted to do yet claim will harm the economy!"

Jody -

The Democrats came up with the sequester. The President signed off on it. Look it up. It's quite fascinating

To answer your quote, the same thing the Democrat controlled Senate is doing. Not a damn thing. The Republican bill submitted today gives Obama full control to decide what cuts to make to avoid the sequester. And guess what? It was voted down by the Democrats!

I can't. I'm not Obama. All I can address is his behavior in the matter. He hasn't passed a budget via executive order, ergo he hasn't over stepped his authority.

Right, so WCA was ok in mocking the Esteemed and Glorious Emperor for Posturing... You keep chasing your tail Sarah. First you point out to WCA that its congress' job yet it was the Glorious Emperor who said he would focus on it.... (im pretty sure we know he can't pass squat without Congress). However he makes the gesture to 'focus' as in reach across the aisle to work with Congress (which shockingly has republicans) to help fix the economy.. Someone say Squirrel....

but MOST people can focus on more than one thing at a time. It's called multi-tasking and it's very common in the 21st century.

apparently Oblamo cant because he said this 4 years ago.

I am not so sure that EVERYBODY should have one.

sure the mentally ill and criminals shouldnt, there are laws that intended to prevent them from owning, NO LAW will be full proof. Everybody outside of that should be able to have that RIGHT afforded to them through the second amendment of the Constitution.

Unfortunately, White Collar Auto et al, the economy is not the only issue with which the the government must cope on a daily basis. the economy may be front and center in the media but the White House and its enumerated 'appendages' are confronted with more issues than one - though it would be nice if they could slay their dragons one at a time!

Charlie-1915998: ""There is NO way anyone should "Urge" the supreme court on how to vote."

BS. Ever hear of the Office of Solicitor General?? Presidents do that all the time and just about every president since Washington has."

You are completely wrong on the role of Solicitor General. He isn't supposed to submit briefs to the court that the U.S. government is not involved in. It is his role to be the U.S. government's spokesperson in cases that the U.S. government is a party to. In the case of DOMA, which the U.S. government is a party, he should be defending it not trying to tear it down (see protect and defend the Constitution).

Sarah, As soon as you can make a valid, legal case for the Constitutionality of DOMA, you'll have a point, however I won't hold my breath.

Article 1 - Section 8: (Regarding Congress Duties) To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Article 1- Section 10 : No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

Marriage is a legal contract, and biding to the financial disolution of said contract.

Amendment 10 : The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

So, if it's NOT addressed in the Constitution, then the Federal Government has no say. That includes the Supreme Court. It also means any State that has passed but voter majority, laws that say just as the DOMA act, can not be overturned by said Federal Government.

In other words, the DOMA is for Federal only, and anything related to the Federal Government... and by the very Constitution, ANY involvment in by the Federal Government is a violation of the Consitution (in other words, the President and Supreme Court are illegally using their position to interfere with a State's sovereignty.

So, you would have to really overlook some very key provisions in the body of the Constitution... Sure hoping you are smart enough to know there is a whole book of the Constituion besides the know "Amendments".

Let's see, Obama was against this, before he was for it, then against it again, now in favor of it.

What will he be in favor of next week? I guess it will depend on which way the political wind is blowing.

juudgeing by the courts latest opinions, they will rule it is a state decision to define what is a valid marriage(same sex unions of a civil law nature will not be affected); each state will determine the legal right to be married in that state, age,sex,blood relationship those rules have been in effect for many years; the court will not order states to allow same sex marriages if that state has outlawed that type of union.

Is Obama planning on getting married again?

You're confusing marriage and Holy Matrimony. People get married everyday without invoking any religion or God. Plus, we were getting married before any religion existed.

Sarah, no, I'm not. The argument is about changing the definition of marriage, if you remove the word marriage from the legal language, then you do not have to change the definiton, everyone wins. I didn't think that was that confusing.

3thirty.. the duties of the solicitor general are to deal with the oral arguments before the Supreme Court. His/her job is #2 in the DoJ, both sides of any hearing are heard, there is an attorney made available for both sides...

But I am confused, how does the President (directly) involvment in the State debate compare to a Federal Lawyer, doing his job as defined by law?

You do understand, this case involves JUST the State of California, and both sides already have legal representation?

You also understand that the Courts are to be impartial, as is the President. They are to represent ALL the People, not their supporters or their personal views.

Check the Constitution on Powers of the Judiciary and Executive Branches...

Sarah,

I wouldn't waste anymore time on CA, he's a fool.

I for one am against gay "marriage." I am however in favor of gay couple having the same rights as hetro-couples. Why do you have to have everything or nothing at all? TO THE GAY COMMUNITY - Why can't you accept all the rights as traditional couples like health care, Social Security etc and call that a win? Then let the Religious folks keep the name "marriage" to themselves. That way both sides win. Why not call it a union or a bonding or something else? Why do you have to have it all? If you get all the benefits (which is what started this debate in the first place), you win 97% of what you wanted. Let the church keep their name "marriage." Everyone wins! But that isn't good enough is it? You have to get it all or nothing at all. Sad really. If you took my approach, this debate would have been over years ago.

@The Queenie - facts don't support you and people who respond by calling other people idiots are usually the real idiots:

MER1962 - again with the lies. President Obama has NOT signed the most Executive Orders. That honor goes to - wait for it - George W. Bush. Try again - oh, that's right - you'll just post MORE lies!

I have an idea, why don't you focus "like a laser" on jobs and the economy like you promised each and every year for the last four years?

and Sarah...

Marriage is not older than religon... note, oldest known were Samarien, which were Jewish half-breed, to be Jewish, there would have to be religion.

Problem is, your actually confusing Holy Matrimony with religion.. might actually look up the definition of those terms.

But here is the problem, the UN. If you define Marriage more openly in the US, it becomes an issue of International definition... and Muslims, like those we are supporting, oppose homosexuality, so much they have made it a "Death Penalty"... seriously, top of list, don't even need a hearing.

What really needs to happen, they need to make the "Domestic Relations" title equal to Marriage.

Then, nobody has a say. Sort of like, they do not say a black man IS a white man, they just made a black man with equal rights... well, based on the law.

Besides, 75% of all marriages end in divorce, not sure why anyone wants an equal right to that...

Seeking Sanity, that is NOT correct. Bush only signed 291 total E.O.'s in 8 years. Obama currently is at 144 in 4.1 years... If he matches first term, he will finish just under GW Bush.

Sarah was kind enough to post link above... might actually check your facts... considering FDR signed thousands. Then again, He had the Depression and WWII in one term. Laid the groundwork for Welfare, Social Security, Medicare AND Civil Rights...

Volume does not constitute anything.

@Loomis, you speak of the gay community as if they are all united on this. I have several gay friends and, actually, most of them are happy with civil unions as long as they have the same legal rights as married couples. As long as they can have joint ownership, with survivorship rights. Can visit their partner in the hospital, etc, they are ok with it. There are some who press on and want actual marriage, a handful who even want churches to be 'forced' to recognize the marriage (whatever that means) but it seems, from my unscientific poll, that most are ok with seperate but equal civil unions.

Sarah-3043284, #1.45- AND, a Man and a Woman (who love each other) can also enter in a "Civil Union", as opposed to Marriage, as an alternative, No?

Ricks real, you got heads exploding. Is there room in your theory for people that don't believe? If the two of them are gay, does that make it wrong for them to pledge to each other in their bonds of "Holy matrimony"?

At least it has come to a discussion now and more people are being educated that there are going to be gay people. That in itself is not harmful to anyone. From the attitude in the 60's and 70's of "were here, were queer, deal with it".

ljstauth, I'm well aware of what you stated. I do not understand your confusion. One case is CA Prop. 8 constitutionality, the other is DOMA constitutional. The Solicitor should only submit briefs if requested or required. Your statement "You also understand that the Courts are to be impartial, as is the President. They are to represent ALL the People, not their supporters or their personal views" may and should be correct concerning the courts but it is most certainly NOT when it comes to the President, at least this one. This is one of the most partisan Presidents ever and is not defending DOMA (the law of the land) he has instructed his DOJ not to defend it because he thinks it's unconstitutional. Excuse me, but that is NOT his job. It is also not his job to make statements about how he feels about cases before the court.

Oww and Clinton... signed 364 EO's... far more than GW Bush, G Bush Sr, 166. Reagan 381. Carter 360. Ford 169. Nixon 346. LBJ 324. Kennedy 214. FDR 3,728.

No sorry, hate to burst bubbles, Clinton signed more EO's than BOTH Bush 2 terms and Obama... but so did Reagan.

So not even a Democrat vs Republican thing...

So many factual and logical errors in this thread:

1.) People are not born a certain religion (though Judaism is considered to be an ethnicity as much as a religion, but outside of that...), you choose your religion. And yet we consider religious affiliation a protected class. Thus, we do have protected classes that are based in choice. Thus, even if homosexuality was a choice (despite all the evidence to the contrary), that would not automatically exclude it from being a protected class. Try again.

2.) Please stop with the tired slippery slope arguments. If you claim that giving people certain marriage rights leads to pedophilia, necrophilia, incest, etc. -- then, why exactly does heterosexual marriage not lead to these things? By giving heterosexual individuals marriage rights, doesn't that open the door to giving anybody who wants marriage rights?

Slippery slope arguments are fallacies. Just give it up.

3.) The laws dealing with marriage refer specifically to civil marriage. It has nothing to do with Christian marriage or any other religious marriage. Trying to claim that same-sex marriage advocates are trying to change the definition of Christian marriage is false. They are trying to change who gets legal rights in civil marriage.

4.) Same-sex marriage does not infringe of the rights of churches to marry whomever they want. Churches already, BY LAW, have the ability to decide not to marry a couple. They can require you be a part of the congregation. They can require that you go through a Christian marriage counseling. They can tell you they don't want to marry you because you're gay, black, Jewish, etc. Changing marriage laws such that gay marriage is legal will not change these laws.

OMG! Someone actually compared homosexuality to pedophilia? What a SHOCK!!! ( Heavy sarcasm) Gays are born that way. They know from the time they are small what they are attracted to and what they aren't. I had my first crush on a boy at the age of 4. Get over it already you prudes.

And as for those saying marriage is a religious thing. No it's not. It's a legal thing. If you want to get married in a church, fine. But my husband and I were married in front of a JP with just close family and friends present. And that worked for us.

Gays DON'T CHOOSE to be gay. They just are. They are born that way. Why not just accept it? Or if you can't, that still doesn't mean you have the right to infringe on other peoples' rights. Step off homophobes and go back to the rocks you all crawled out from under.

two mules for sister Sarah said

Well, no I don't, since I haven't seen that position posted by myself or Eric. Face it, you got your history wrong and don't want to admit it. Own it like a man, why don't you?

Eric the bonehead said:

Discrimination must end.....period. If the will of the people was to allow discrimination against black people then Republicans would be all for it (or are for it).

So of course you didnt see it....your head was up his ass...maybe you should own it like a man?

You poor lefties that see KKK members everywhere have some real head issues. and Sarah way to avoid everything. you'd make a good politician but a lousy leader

3Thirty3, the Solitor Generals job it to be the Representative for teh Attorney General, not submit anything. They actually do have the right/ability to make oral arguments formally before the COurts, that is the very job of an attorney.

Obviously you are more confused than average... both sides of an arguemnt have alloted time to represnt their case before the Justices... and the Justices have the ability to question them.

Pretty sure you are seeing a speration in the title and their job. Or do you assume that the Attorney General actually present the arguments?

When a State faced being the defense, the Dept of Justice (as a cabinet of the President), is NOT suppose to get involved, by briefs or otherwise, powers of Executive Branch are well defined in Constitution.

The Solitor General only is involved in cases involving the Federal DOMA, and it's Consitutionality. It's his job to represent the Executive Branch.

Problem is, the Executive Branch are suppose to be representing the People as a whole as in majority... so when he reperesents something opposite the will of the People, he, himself is performing an Unconsitutional act, and is actually defined as treason.

@honestdebate:

The definition of a word should never even be a consideration for one's civil rights. Marriage is also defined by the vowels one shares with another in a celebration of two people committed to each other in a relationship. It's mostly the religious zealots that want their definition (no, that's not a shot at you, just saying, that's all).

If two people of the same sex get married, does that invalidate that of two people married of opposite sex over a simple defining of the term? If so, I don't think the definition meme some people are using as an argument is the issue, their own relationship is. Aside from that, their are no laws on what meanings actually are supposed to be when "defining" those relevant words. The definition of marriage has even been used when defining the union of two companies.

Rabid Cheese Monkey:

The word "arms":

A weapon, arm, or armament is a device or equipment used in order to inflict damage or harm to enemies or other living beings, structures, or systems. Weapons are used to increase the efficacy and efficiency of activities such as hunting, crime, law enforcement, self-defense, and warfare. In a broader context, weapons may be construed to include anything used to gain a strategic, material or mental advantage over an adversary.

So, despite it saying "arms", it is referring to guns or any firearm. Since we have no need for swords or maces, as they are inefficient and inconvenient to both perpetrators and victims defending themselves, guns are the primary "right" in this sense.

I agree that guns are covered by the word "arms." So are nukes. Does the Constitution guarantee us the right to bear nukes if we so desire?

Much more important than any sequester BS. Finally showing some leadership and moving on to more important things for this country.

I don't see the problem, everyone has an equal right to be as happy or miserable as they want by going into the legally binding contract of marriage. :) I do not see any reason why people should be against it other than practicing some moronic, anachronistic belief system that should have no place in our modern society.

Anyone believing that legalizing "gay marriage" will spell doom and destruction of our nation, "as it has to every other such nation in history" is just regurgitating complete ignorance and nonsense. That is simply another talking point meant to scare the easily influenced, religious simpletons that dominate the right leaning imbeciles that infuse themselves with a daily dose of rush limbaugh and fox news BS. If one would study actual history outside of some idiotic religous text and not presented by glen beck, one would find many other factors... greed being a very good example that rings true today.

Equating same sex marriage to the demise of a nation is complete lunacy, much like blaming gays for the hurricanes, fires, weather change, earth quakes and whatever else. It is meant to keep the easily controlled, mindless zombies focused on some "make believe" issue while they are getting bent over, screwed and robbed by the wealthy pricks that actually control our politicians and legal system.

Interesting how many of the same justifying gun control in the form of an assault weapons ban because it is supported by a "majority" (even if only in polls) now want to overturn the will of the majority (ones that actually voted). This for an amendment to the constitution of a sovereign state. The federal government has no business being in this fight. It's all just posing.

Loomis,

I for one am against gay "marriage." I am however in favor of gay couple having the same rights as hetro-couples. Why do you have to have everything or nothing at all? TO THE GAY COMMUNITY - Why can't you accept all the rights as traditional couples like health care, Social Security etc and call that a win? Then let the Religious folks keep the name "marriage" to themselves. That way both sides win. Why not call it a union or a bonding or something else? Why do you have to have it all? If you get all the benefits (which is what started this debate in the first place), you win 97% of what you wanted. Let the church keep their name "marriage." Everyone wins! But that isn't good enough is it? You have to get it all or nothing at all. Sad really. If you took my approach, this debate would have been over years ago.

This argument makes no logical sense. The term "marriage" is used as a legal definition and covers any legal marriage -- if people have a Buddhist wedding in the U.S. and go through all the legal hoops necessary, that is still called marriage. If atheists marry, that is still called marriage. Thus, marriage is not a Christian term -- at least not insofar as this debate is concerned. Are you suggesting that laws be rewritten so that "marriage" can only refer to Christians who are married by a Christian pastor and everyone else (individuals of other religions, atheists, gays, etc.) have to call theirs a "union" or "domestic partnership"? If that's not the argument you are making, then your argument as it applies to gay marriage makes no sense. If that is what you are arguing, tell me why this is necessary? No one had a problem with atheists marrying and calling it "marriage" before -- why, when discussing gay marriage, does the law suddenly need to distinguish between a Christian marriage vs. any other type of "marriage"?

The President needs to respect the fact that a majority of California voted that marriage is between a man and a women only and not throw his political weight into the situation. We, the people of California, voted and that is that. What is the point of voting if the President is going to try and interfere in a state he does not even live in?

ljstauth, I do not think I'm confused. Yes the the Solicitor General (SG) is the person that agues for the government before the court. Are you trying to say the SG does not prepare and file briefs with the court? Here's an excerpt from Wikipedia:

"The Solicitor General determines the legal position that the United States will take in the Supreme Court. In addition to supervising and conducting cases in which the government is a party, the office of the Solicitor General also files amicus curiae briefs in cases in which the federal government has a significant interest in the legal issue. The office of the Solicitor General argues on behalf of the government in virtually every case in which the United States is a party, and also argues in most of the cases in which the government has filed an amicus brief. In the federal courts of appeal, the Office of the Solicitor General reviews cases decided against the United States and determines whether the government will seek review in the Supreme Court. The office of the Solicitor General also reviews cases decided against the United States in the federal district courts and approves every case in which the government files an appeal."

Therefore the SG does prepare and file briefs. I'm am fully aware of the duties of both the AG and SC. All my postings were referring to were: 1) the AG and/or SC should NOT submit uninvited briefs or opinions to the court and 2) the President is NOT upholding the Constitution and laws of the land.

Obama aka new hitler doing it again... thinking he should over rule the American people in their voting. What a douche

Tommy6860 -

I'm looking for a way to end the pointless arguing. Making a legal union by the state to not be called marriage would do that. The religious will have to get contracted by the state, just as they do now, in order to be legally "married." But they will then also, if they choose, have to be married in their church separately to complete their 'sacred' vow(el), lol sorry had to.

All I am saying is that by legal contracted standards (which is all marriage is now, a contract between 2 people and the state) the legal union would be complete, call it whatever you want, but don't call it marriage and this whole argument will be over.

For people that like to ignore what someone is saying because they prefer to argue than to think and read (Sarah comes to mind), it would be everyone getting this legal union 'title' instead of being called married. Everyone would be equal, and the religious people could still call their sacrament, or whatever their religion calls it, a marriage.

Why do I have to keep explaining this simple, logical concept?

Samantha said, "The President needs to respect the fact that a majority of California voted that marriage is between a man and a women only and not throw his political weight into the situation. We, the people of California, voted and that is that."

That is not that, Sam; although clearly you wish that were the case. Why do you think it's being reviewed by Scotus? To find out if it is constititional. That's how it works, dear. The people are not allowed to pass laws that unconstitutional. Two lower courts have said that it is. Scotus will settle the issue.

[You talk out of both sides of your mouth.]

Sarah, you're too far north...but lately commodus has been talking out of his ass, which he carries around in a sack.

Be careful, next he'll call you gay...or a commie...or that you're "left of Che"...or he just may have his usual meltdown and call you a douchebag. He likes that one.

P Hawk makes a good point: "Interesting how many of the same justifying gun control in the form of an assault weapons ban because it is supported by a "majority" (even if only in polls) now want to overturn the will of the majority (ones that actually voted)."

You often here the pro-SSM folks say, "You don't believe in gay marriage, don't marry a gay person." I have the same view regarding guns. I don't own one and never will. However, I don't think I have the right to say you should not own one. Tell you what: let me have my gay marriage and I will let you have your guns. :)

@Samantha-1783461

Wrong as we are a republic the last I saw. No majority of votes should ever deny those the same rights that I have; that isn't a democracy in any sense of the meaning. It was just less than 50 years ago that Caucasian and African-Americans couldn't marry each other until that was shot down by the SCOTUS.

It's interesting how some toss out state's rights/examples as what determines this issue of equal rights (which, IMO, trounces on the "Full Faith and Credit Clause" in the IV Amendment). Last time I took a look at my legal status in this country, I saw that I am a US citizen, not just a state resident and all the right that I am afforded should apply to everyone, which is therefor, a federal issue.

Honestdebate,

Just as I responded to Loomis, same goes here...

Unless the Christians are going to argue that the term marriage should only be applied to Ch

ristian marriages approved and performed by the church, then this argument makes no sense.

Atheist marriages are called marriages. That has nothing to do with the church's definition of marriage.

Marriages between infertile people are called marriages. That has nothing to do with procreation.

Thus the two main arguments for why we should have a different name for gay marriages don't make sense. It is purposely picking out gays (and their marriages) as something different, when there is no reason to do so. It's discriminatory and unnecessary. When someone can make a logical argument as to why we need to distinguish between gay marriages vs. other types of marriages (but don't need to distinguish between other "marriages"), I will gladly hear it. But thus far I have heard none.

Sorry honest, but I disagree. Your solution is to simply make a definition a law just perpetuates bigotry and argues on bigotry's behalf, it cannot be explained any other way. State's rights should not trump what are federal civil rights we all have as US citizens. Why people get hung up over a definition just because some don't like gay marriage, which begs to question; what does it matter to them? Marriage is ceremony expressing commitment and love between two people. As I said before, it is between two people and marriage has its meaning what that is between those two people. When one goes out of their way to fret over its meaning as somehow demeaning theirs, it really is not about the definition anymore, and I truly think you know that.

@Sarah – you wrote “We don't vote on civil rights. We're a Republic.

I mean, come on people, this is fourth grade stuff here.”

So you are saying that President Obama failed the 4^th grade since he doesn't believe marriage is a civil right?

--

In 2004, Barack Obama appeared on ‘Chicago Tonight’ and stated the following:

OBAMA: “No. I think there are a whole host of things that are civil rights, and then there are other things--such as traditional marriage--that, I think, express a community's concern and regard for a particular institution.”

Q: “So, marriage is not a civil right, as far as you're concerned.”

OBAMA: “I don't think marriage is a civil right, but I think that being able…”

He also stated:

Q: “Mr. Obama, you've said that your religious faiths, your religious faith, dictates that marriage should be between a man and a woman. Would you elaborate on that?”

OBAMA: “Well, what I believe is that marriage is between a man and a woman, but what I also believe is that we have an obligation to make sure that gays and lesbians have the rights of citizenship that afford them visitations to hospitals, that allow them to be, to transfer property between partners, to make certain that they're not discriminated on the job. I think that bundle of rights are absolutely
critical.”

There is more in the interview and it is easy to find the transcript and video, but he was pretty clear in what he believes.

So, Olivia, love is love...so, let gays go live and love together; I don't care if they do that. But, they want to get married because they don't want to miss out on any of the bennies....insurance, tax advantages, etc., and those of us who think that their lifestyle violates obvious laws of biology and anatomy damned well don't want to be forced to pay for their goodies!

So there it is, huh Spider? You wan't all of the "goodies" for yourself and your "kind". I don't like your kind. I don't want to pay for your goodies, either. Here is an idea, how about everybody gets equal representation?

Sio and Tommy -

You are both saying the same thing which, unfortunately, is that you do not care about the actually rights, it is the word you need.

That is sad and why this argument will never end, you are no different than those you oppose, you both want to retain a meaningless word.

My resolution makes everyone equal, but it seems to not be enough for you guys.

I have very mixed emotions regarding this issue, and how it is being handled. While I'm fairly acceptant of gay marriage, and feel it is time that for society to recognize same sex unions, I do not believe that recognition of same sex unions is required by our Constitution, not unless society is now obligated to recognize any and all configurations of consenting adults who wish to marry.

First cousins, a man espousing two or more women, a woman espousing two or more men: assuming all of the parties are aware and accepting of the arrangements, all such unions have an equal moral claim for recognition as a marriage. I know some of these arrangements cause some people to wrinkle their noses in disgust. To those people, I'll just note that only 10 or 15 years ago, similar attitudes were commonly held with regard to gay marriage (and, of course, still are held in some circles).

I also question the propriety of a sitting President, even one for whom I have twice cast my vote, actively lobbying regarding a case before the Supreme Court.

Oh well, I recognize that the President and many others speaking on this subject are doubtless more intelligent than I, and perhaps more free from bias. But I still believe that this matter is one best decided through legislation, not through adjudication, and that if the Supreme Court rules in favor of Gay Marriage, we'll be openning a judicial can of worms, and one well past its last fresh sale date.

Honest, I never have argued over the word, as I think marriage is marriage when it concerns two people. However, you did make that definition a point of contention and I gave reasons why your contention doesn't fit. It goes against rights over a definition because maybe you and a good deal of others feel their word is being trampled upon, when the definition simply defines what two people mean to each other. Is it really that hard for you??

Eric-913730

Isn't government "a tool"....... :-)

Big difference. We get to hold our elected officials responsible, and vote them out when they don't represent us and our points of view. Quite the opposite of religious organizations, wouldn't you say? In America, it is supposed to be "We, the people" who decide the way we want our country to be. Is it the congregations that tells the church leaders how to run their church? I don't think so.

Stacey, what you quote from what Obama cited at different times are simply what he states as his beliefs. In a society governed by laws where beliefs do not trump rights, you are taking out of context what the meaning Obama stated over various times. He opined his statements, not professed them to be laws governing civil rights.

So Tommy, you are not willing to accept everyone being able to go through the same process, obtain the same rights, without it being called marriage. That is exactly what I said. It is not about the rights, it is about the word, which is sad.

I never have argued over the word, as I think marriage is marriage when it concerns two people.

In that statement alone you are arguing over the word, because I'm saying to substitute marriage with union (or any word of your choice) and this whole issue goes away. But that isn't what you seem to actually want.

honestdebate,

I said nothing of the sort. I just asked why there needs to be a seperation when no such seperation is made between say atheists marrying vs. Christians marrying. If Christians truly had a problem with the word "marriage" being used for marriages not sanctioned by the Christian church, why are they not up in arms about atheists using the word marriage? Or how people who have gotten divorced and remarried? By Christian tenets, that second marriage should not be considered valid. Why does that not get a special name?

Again, there is literally no logical reason that gay marriage should be defined or labeled seperately from other marriages. To do so is little more than an attempt to specifically stigmatize gay marriage. Not atheist marriage. Not Buddhist marriage. Not second marriages. Not infertile couples' marriage. It is only to stigmatize gay marriage. So, again.. tell me why there needs to be a seperate word. Any reason. Other than people claim that they would be fine with the same benefits going to gay marriage as long as there was a different word (which, btw, is a red herring. In many states where people voted on civil unions, it was still voted down. And several states that had made gay marriage amendments barred both "gay marriage" and "civil unions." So, the idea that calling it civil unions would suddenly make this whole debate go away is actually bunk).

BTW, I have asked this question (why there needs to be distinction between gay marriages vs. other marriages when we make no distinctions of other marriages that differ from the Christian definition of marriage) on several different news articles, bulletin boards, etc. And I have never once received an answer. In fact, the response I usually get is honestdebate's response: "Do you care about the word or the rights?"

I find it telling that no one has actually answered my question.

But, honestdebate, despite you not answering my question, I will answer yours.

I don't see a need for a separate term. In fact, I believe all a separate term would do is stigmatize gay marriages and be used as a means to create separate rights between gay and straight marriages (I mean, if we treat them as two separate things, it's not a far cry from saying they come with different rights). Separate but "equal" has not worked previously and I don't expect it to work now. There is no such thing as a "Christian definition of marriage" when it comes to law. And in fact, any argument saying that the civil marriages are Christian marriages would be a violation of church and state. Thus, there is no reason to make a distinction because civil marriages have nothing to do with Christian marriages.

The other argument that is made is that "marriage" is defined by procreation. However, because we do not make a distinction between infertile couples or couples who have no desire to have children, then again there is no reason to make a distinction between gay marriage and all other marriages.

It becomes clear the desire for a separate term is merely so they can treat gay marriages differently. And if you don't believe that is true, then tell me... if people are claiming that there needs to be a seperate category for marriages that don't fit a Christian definition of marriage, then why are gay marriages the only ones being put in that category (despite there being other marriages that would fit in that category)? If people are claiming that there needs to be a seperate category for marriages by people who will not procreate with each other, then why are gay marriages the only one being put in that category (despite there being other marriages that would fit in that category)? If that doesn't scream "I specifically want gay marriage to be treated differently", well then... I don't know what to tell you.

Honestdebate, my husband and I are MARRIED! We did not marry in a church. To take the title away and use it only for those married in a church is ignorant and discriminatory. But most homophobes are ignorant. It's as one poster put it. Atheists who marry are still married. Buddhists who marry are still married. And I'm going to add one. Pagans who marry are still Pagans. Eventually, the homophobic, stuck in the past prudes will lose and gays will be able to marry the person they love. But one of my gay friends said, "Honey, that's not gonna happen in Texas. Jesus will return before that happens here." It made me laugh because of the way he said it, but unfortunately, it may be true where I live. But I hope those days do come to an end soon. Let gays be free to marry. Who's it hurting? NO ONE!!!!

LJS,

Of course marriage isn't in the Constitution, a LOT of things that we are legally allowed to do aren't in the Constitution, because the Constitution doesn't enumerate OUR rights, it LIMITS and enumerates the powers of the government. The only time the Constitution addressed citizen behavior and not government behavior was prohibition, and that didn't work out too well. So, what IS in the Constitution are limits to government infringement of our privacy, and equal protection.

First, there are certain "protected classes" laid out in the 14th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act. Two of them are race and gender. In the Supreme Court case Loving v Virginia, SCOTUS ruled that,

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival....

Now this case was based on race, BUT to support gay marriage, all you have to do is change race to GENDER, another protected class. PLUS, the 14th Amendment has a little something called the "Privileges and Immunities" clause. Which means, you can't deny the citizens, their privileges, or immunities, based on those classes. In this case, that'd be gender.

So, since marriage is a legal (that means law) contract, that comes with PRIVILEGES, you can't deny citizens, without a damn good, already been shown to exist, reason, based on gender, among other things. So, if the state can't prove a reason, to deny privileges to people based on gender, they can't make that particular law.Now, put it together. If two gay people want to enter a contract, and the state tells them they can't, because of the gender of one of the parties, THAT'S A BIG NO NO.

Also, the logic that gay people are free to marry, just as you are, i.e they're free to marry one of the opposite sex, is the EXACT same defense that Virginia used in their defense, again just turn gender to race.

The court ruled, AGAINST that logic.

Second, you have an implied right to privacy, mostly through the 9th and 4th Amendments. In a the SCOTUS case Lawrence v Texas, the court said this...

The Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual.

Third, AGAIN, marriage is a civil contract, that comes with over 1,000 benefits granted by the state. Most of these benefits deal with property, insurance, tax and probate law. Civil unions, do NOT grant equivalent benefits. In order to enter a legal contract, the parties have to have LEGAL CAPACITY FOR INFORMED CONSENT.

Furthermore, marriages are NOT religious, that's Holy Matrimony, which a church can NEVER be forced to perform against its dogma, due to protections in the 1st Amendment. This is why people can, and do, get married any day without ever stepping foot in a church.

Also, marriage has NOTHING to do with procreation. After all, we let people have kids OUTSIDE of marriage, and NOT have kids while married.

Fourth, there are very few limited reasons for the government to discriminate in law, against one of these protected classes, and in order to do so, the government has to pass the test of strict scrutiny, which is that compelling state interest mentioned in Lawrence v Texas.

There's also a little something called The Full Faith and Credit Clause in the Constitution, which states that each state has to recognize and respect the legal matters of every other state. Therefore, leaving this up to the states DOESN'T work, because if you get married in CA, the Constitution states that NC, who has a state amendment AGAINST gay marriage, has to recognize the marriage contract from CA. Now, how do you suggest THAT works? Also, NO we don't leave civil rights up to a majority vote. We're a Republic, meaning the rights of the minority are protected from the whims of the majority. See above for ALL the NUMEROUS reasons this IS a civil rights issue.

So....

The real question, those making the case for continuing the gender based discrimination of DOMA is, what is that compelling state interest? And before we start talking about marrying appliances, nephews, sheep, or dead people, consider this...

We live in a free society, which means your "slippery slope" is only applicable when you want to expand government power, NOT when you're expanding rights. Ergo, the slippery slope actually works AGAINST the anti-equality argument. It's more logical and legally correct to say that banning marriage based on gender, could lead the government to presume they have the power to ban marriage based on other protected classes, i.e. race or religion.

And then ask yourselves this...

Why doesn't STRAIGHT marriage lead to any of that? And the answer is ALSO the answer as to why gay marriage won't lead to those things.

And YES, marriage does predate organized religion. Nor does any religious attachment to the word marriage mean SQUAT, because marriages aren't religious. I've already been over this. If the government tried to make that claim, this would be even MORE unconstitutional because of the 1st Amendment too.

http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/ATLAS_EN/html/history_of_marriage_in_western.html

http://www.asktheatheists.com/questions/525-is-the-ritual-of-marriage-derived-from-religion/

http://rationalreasons.blogspot.com/2005/05/brief-history-of-marriage.html

Stacy,

Not sure what your point is, as Obama's opinion on this is just as irrelevant as yours or mine.

Mystery,

Why would they want to, since civil unions are lacking the 1,000+ benefits of marriage.

You're being less than "honest", honest, when you take my words out of context. You're the one making a contention on what marriage is, not I. I just responded to you on your misplaced concern over a definition. Again, marriage is commitment between two people in a loving relationship. If I have to expound farther on what the meanings of marriage are beyond just a simplistic definition, then it is lost on you.

@Siobhan27: Well said on your last reply :D !

Sarah-3043284

Yeah, you didn't make the case for DOMA being unconstitutional. If you can't do that, than DOMA is unconstitutional, and by upholding it Obama wouldn't be protecting the Constitution, he'd be violating it.

So your case...

You posting here is completely nonsensical. The fact that 10 people voted it up means they're just voting you up and probably didn't even read it. Or, they're just stupid.

DOMA is not unconstitutional. It is the law of the land. It can not be considered unconstitutional until the SCOTUS rules it to be. It's just that simple. A federal law can not be negated nor impacted by laws created by states after the fact....federal law supersedes conflicting state laws. THAT is how the Constitution works.

Oh...and your arguments about substituting "race" with "gender" in terms of marriage are specious. We wouldn't have laws prohibiting incestuous marriages if things were as simple as you try to make them out to be.

Big difference. We get to hold our elected officials responsible, and vote them out when they don't represent us and our points of view. Quite the opposite of religious organizations, wouldn't you say? In America, it is supposed to be "We, the people" who decide the way we want our country to be. Is it the congregations that tells the church leaders how to run their church? I don't think so.

lol. that's cute. when you grow up, you'll look back and wonder how you could have ever been so clueless

DOMA is not unconstitutional. It is the law of the land. It can not be considered unconstitutional until the SCOTUS rules it to be. It's just that simple. A federal law can not be negated nor impacted by laws created by states after the fact....federal law supersedes conflicting state laws. THAT is how the Constitution works.

That's why I asked you to make a case for it being Constitutional, which by the way, you still haven't done.

And yes, federal law preempts conflicting state law via the Supremacy Clause, however DOMA allows for states to not recognize the legal contracts of other states violating the Full Faith and Credit clause...

http://www.ucc.org/assets/pdfs/emr21.pdf

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c104:H.R.3396.ENR:

So by your very own point you just showed DOMA to be unconstitutional.

We wouldn't have laws prohibiting incestuous marriages if things were as simple as you try to make them out to be.

Incest laws have nothing to do with gender, and their illegality has nothing to do with marriage OR gender. Nor did you explain your claim of speciousness.

OMG! Someone actually compared homosexuality to pedophilia? What a SHOCK!!! ( Heavy sarcasm) Gays are born that way. They know from the time they are small what they are attracted to and what they aren't. I had my first crush on a boy at the age of 4. Get over it already you prudes.

Do you have a citation for a vetted, peer-approved scientific confirmation that "gays are born that way"...?

Are you making the argument that being "gay" is a genetic trait? Please cite any legitimate scientific proof that being gay is genetic. I would ask that you cite scientific data that says that being "gay" IS genetic and not data that merely states that being "gay" COULD be genetic.

Until then, I'm merely going to take it as your opinion that gays are "born that way".

Also, since we do have scientific and psychology data that says homosexuality can be caused by emotional and psychological trauma....are these people not really "gay" since they weren't born that way to you?

And yes, federal law preempts conflicting state law via the Supremacy Clause, however DOMA allows for states to not recognize the legal contracts of other states violating the Full Faith and Credit clause...

There were NO STATES that had laws allowing gay marriage prior to DOMA being enacted....DOMA can not violate the Full Faith and Credit Clause for laws enacted by states AFTER DOMA was enacted.

Do I need to draw you a timeline?

I don't need to make a case for it being unconstitutional...it is the law. Only the person wanting it deemed unconstitutional has to make a case for it being unconstitutional.

@Sarah Well said and what's amazing is the fact that the FF&C clause which is in the Constitution, is in effect, superseded by a federal law passed by congress and signed by then Pres Clinton (one of the few laws he enacted that I vehemently opposed) in the form of DOMA, allowing states to violate the FF&C clause. It boggles the mind how that can apply with any sense of logic.

@J R Browenstein:

Personal attacks and ad hominem will get you nowhere fast. I voted Sarah up, because I read her words. In the context of civil rights and federal laws coinciding with elements of the Constitution, not only is she being factual, but she makes sense. IF people are stupid based on your "voting up" meme, then I guess the lack reading comprehension on your part is a form of high intellect? Note, that I don't post this with this intention of attacking, however if my reply to you seems ugly, then maybe that should give you pause in my example.

There were NO STATES that had laws allowing gay marriage prior to DOMA being enacted....DOMA can not violate the Full Faith and Credit Clause for laws enacted by states AFTER DOMA was enacted.

Do you even read the posts first???

We don't need laws allowing gay marriage. We don't need laws allowing anything, as we're a free society. We need laws OUTLAWING those things, that have compelling government interests.

If DOMA allows for one state to negate the legal contracts of another state, YES it does. Read the links I provided if you don't believe me, but really it's a simple concept. When DOMA was written is moot. EVERY law was written after the Constitution, which contains the Full Faith and Credit Clause, so by your logic NO law falls under its purview.

I don't need to make a case for it being unconstitutional...it is the law. Only the person wanting it deemed unconstitutional has to make a case for it being unconstitutional.

See, we also have a little something called Judicial Scrutiny, which allows the judicial branch to check the laws written by the legislative branch to make sure they're Constitutional. A law is not Constitutional merely by lieu of being passed.

THAT'S first grade stuff.

Incest laws have nothing to do with gender, and their illegality has nothing to do with marriage OR gender

Incest laws violate a person's unalienable right to marriage....isn't that your argument for gay marriage? That the government has no right to say who can and who can't get married...that it's a "legal contract"...?

You are making the argument that the government can't regulate who can or can't be married because it's a civil right in one sentence and then advocating prohibiting people from marrying "who they love" the next sentence. Either it's a right or it's not...make up your mind.

thetruthteller-3478699

I find most people who use the word "truth" or "freedom" in any title end up being liars who are completely full of @!$%#. Anybody else notice this?

If DOMA allows for one state to negate the legal contracts of another state, YES it does. Read the links I provided if you don't believe me, but really it's a simple concept. When DOMA was written is moot. EVERY law was written after the Constitution, which contains the Full Faith and Credit Clause, so by your logic NO law falls under its purview.

You can't make the argument that DOMA violated laws which didn't even exist when it was put into effected. Yes, it does matter when laws are written. DOMA did not violate any state laws when it was enacted....state laws enacted AFTER DOMA must defer to it. Those state laws do not invalidate it.

Incest laws violate a person's unalienable right to marriage....isn't that your argument for gay marriage?

No, my case against DOMA is that the compelling state interest in limiting marriage is missing, ergo they have no legal case for gender based discrimination. Incest laws have nothing to do with this, as A; The government has a compelling interest in outlawing them and B; That interest is in no way related to marriage.

WHY DOESN'T STRAIGHT MARRIAGE LEAD TO INCEST?

You are making the argument that the government can't regulate who can or can't be married because it's a civil right in one sentence and then advocating prohibiting people from marrying "who they love" the next sentence. Either it's a right or it's not...make up your mind.

Never said they couldn't regulate it. I said they have to have a good reason to regulate it based on gender...

From post #1.137

. So, if the state can't prove a reason, to deny privileges to people based on gender, they can't make that particular law

Go read it again. But I'm willing to guess it will still go over your head. But seriously, I can't make it any more simple than that.

. DOMA did not violate any state laws when it was enacted....state laws enacted AFTER DOMA must defer to it. Those state laws do not invalidate it.

IT DOESN'T MATTER...

DOMA must defer to the Full Faith and Credit Clause, ALWAYS! There is no legal authority higher than the Constitution. You don't get a pass depending on when a state law was written. If you did, any law could be passed tomorrow that negated YOUR marriage in one state, or they could write a law tomorrow negating YOUR driver's lisense, or insurance, or...

See, we also have a little something called Judicial Scrutiny, which allows the judicial branch to check the laws written by the legislative branch to make sure they're Constitutional. A law is not Constitutional merely by lieu of being passed.

A law is constitutional until it is ruled unconstitutional by the SCOTUS. That's how it works. For someone who, if I remember correctly, says she is in the law field, I'd think you would understand this a bit better.

And, yes...the SCOTUS can review laws enacted by Congress...that's THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL ROLE. But, the SCOTUS doesn't have the authority to just say something is unconstitutional...a person with standing must bring a case through the courts until it reaches them. Until then, the law is enforceable...period.

If I remember correctly, I recall you droning on and on and on about ObamaCare and how it was constitutional because of the authority of Congress to regulate commerce...yet the SCOTUS said that idea was just flat out wrong. Even our "Constitutional lawyer in chief" got his ass handed to him on that point...so I will be taking your opinion of what is or is not "constitutional" with a few grains of salt.

J R,

Your argument doesn't make sense. One of the provision of DoMA specifically states that no state has to recognize the marriage of another state. That in and of itself violates the FFC clause. It wouldn't matter if no state even ended up passing laws allowing gay marriage -- DoMA would still be unconstitutional.

So Jim Crowe was Constitutional before it was ruled unconstitutional? And then what, it magically changed to unconstitutional???

That makes no sense. If a law is Constitutional, it will be ruled Constitutional. The law's constitutionality isn't dependent upon the ruling, the ruling is dependent upon the laws constitutionality.

You're starting to embarrass yourself.

4 words

Donald Young

Larry Sinclair

So Jim Crowe was Constitutional before it was ruled unconstitutional? And then what, it magically changed to unconstitutional???

That makes no sense. If a law is Constitutional, it will be ruled Constitutional. The law's constitutionality isn't dependent upon the ruling, the ruling is dependent upon the laws constitutionality.

You're starting to embarrass yourself.

lol. There was a time when black folks were considered 3/5ths of a person...according to the Constitution.

I think you are confusing what is constitutional with what the constitution actually says vs. how it's interpreted.

That makes no sense. If a law is Constitutional, it will be ruled Constitutional. The law's constitutionality isn't dependent upon the ruling, the ruling is dependent upon the laws constitutionality.

Further, a federal law passed by Congress and signed into law by the President is the law of the land and deemed enforceable until such time that the SCOTUS can review it. For example....the Patriot Act CLEARLY violates the Constitutional protections against searches without probable cause (among a host of other things), yet it is the law of the land...thanks to Obama...until such time as it is reviewed by the SCOTUS and ruled as an infringement on those protections.

I think you can't tell the difference between theoretical law and practical law.

How about this...let's really wind you up. Do you realize that Roe v Wade actually limited a woman's previously unlimited right to abortion? Roe v Wade didn't legalize abortion...it was already legal under federal law. Roe v Wade actually made abortion ILLEGAL in some instances...a position not previously held by the federal government.

Stew on that.

@J R Browenstein

Why bring a racial consideration regarding black people during pre-Civil War US, when that isn't what the Constitution referenced? While you made claims of another confusing what the Constitution states, you fail! See Wikipedia for "Three Fifths Compromise" and look at the section "Misconception".

@J R Browenstein

Why bring a racial consideration regarding black people during pre-Civil War US, when that isn't what the Constitution referenced? While you made claims of another confusing what the Constitution states, you fail! See Wikipedia for "Three Fifths Compromise" and look at the section "Misconception".

I didn't bring up Jim Crowe laws and their "constitutionality"; I was responding to someone who did. The point that I made is that something can be "constitutional" even though it appears to violate what we NOW consider to be the interpretation of the Constitution....the fact that persons now considered to be fully vetted with voting rights were literally not granted those full voting rights by the Constitution itself.

Siobhan27

J R,

Your argument doesn't make sense. One of the provision of DoMA specifically states that no state has to recognize the marriage of another state. That in and of itself violates the FFC clause. It wouldn't matter if no state even ended up passing laws allowing gay marriage -- DoMA would still be unconstitutional.

Ok...let's put this another way. We can even try Sarah's "let's substitute words" exercise....let's substitute "age".

A person is deemed to have reached adulthood by the federal government at the age of 18. At this point, that person can engage in legal contracts as an individual without parental or custodial consent. If an individual state were to lower their age of "legal adulthood" to say...16...other states would not be required to recognize the "adult" status of that person simply because a single state grants that recognition. That 16 year old would still be ineligible for consideration as an adult in any other state, nor would that 16 year old be able to conduct business in any other state as an "adult". That 16 year old would be limited to conducting business within his/her own state to exercise his/her rights to do business as an adult.

Marriage is licensed by the state, not the federal government. There is NO compulsion for all states to recognize rights granted to citizens of individual states that conflict with federal law. Otherwise, states could make ANY law they wanted and expect every other state to acquiesce...which would defeat the purpose of the federal government and it's supremacy.

Every person has the right to marry (unless, of course...you're related or you're already married). The issue of gay marriage is not whether gays have a right to marriage but whether they have a right to marry someone of the same sex...a right NO ONE has under federal law because it's not within the scope of the Constitution for the federal government to regulate. The SCOTUS said that marriage is a "human right" but our constitution does not address "human rights"...it addresses LEGAL rights. Since marriage is regulated at the state level, the SCOTUS's opinion of it is irrelevant. Well, unless, of course, the SCOTUS decides that marriage falls under the purview of the federal government and not the states under the commerce clause. But that would change the entire definition of marriage in the country...and I don't really see that happening.

The federal gover

Every person has the right to marry (unless, of course...you're related or you're already married). The issue of gay marriage is not whether gays have a right to marriage but whether they have a right to marry someone of the same sex...a right NO ONE has under federal law because it's not within the scope of the Constitution for the federal government to regulate.

Same exact argument that failed in Loving v Virginia. EVERYONE has the right to marry someone of the same race, and NO ONE had the right to marry someone of the opposite race.

Since marriage is regulated at the state level, the SCOTUS's opinion of it is irrelevant

This isn't about the "marriage" part, this is about the "equal protection" part, hence SCOTUS heard Loving. We've already been over this.

There is NO compulsion for all states to recognize rights granted to citizens of individual states that conflict with federal law.

First, we don't "need" a compulsion for states to recognize rights. We need a reason for taking them away, that would be the constitutional case for DOMA which you STILL haven't presented. Second, that federal law is in conflict with the Constitution, and that's a big no no.

We've ALSO already been over all of that. You do know that posting the same, flawed, illogical argument over and over and over, doesn't make it any less flawed or illogical, right?

A person is deemed to have reached adulthood by the federal government at the age of 18. At this point, that person can engage in legal contracts as an individual without parental or custodial consent. If an individual state were to lower their age of "legal adulthood" to say...16...other states would not be required to recognize the "adult" status of that person simply because a single state grants that recognition. That 16 year old would still be ineligible for consideration as an adult in any other state, nor would that 16 year old be able to conduct business in any other state as an "adult". That 16 year old would be limited to conducting business within his/her own state to exercise his/her rights to do business as an adult.

They WOULD have to acknowledge the contracts she'd already signed. If she wanted to conduct business in the state where the age was 16, and that business became interstate commerce, YES, they would have to recognize her in the position of her business. If she moved to another state, and then started to build a business where the age was 18, well, NO they wouldn't because that WOULDN'T violate the Full Faith and Credit Clause, because the legality involved in running the business wouldn't have already occurred in a previous state. If however, she brought her husband from the state with the 16 age limit, she would STILL b married, because the legal matter would have already been recognized by a state.

This really isn't that hard.

The Full Faith and Credit Clause—Article IV, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution—provides that the various states must recognize legislative acts, public records, and judicial decisions of the other states within the United States. It states that "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State." The statute that implements the clause, 28 U.S.C.A. § 1738, further specifies that "a state's preclusion rules should control matters originally litigated in that state." The Full Faith and Credit Clause ensures that judicial decisions rendered by the courts in one state are recognized and honored in every other state. It also prevents parties from moving to another state to escape enforcement of a judgment or to relitigate a controversy already decided elsewhere, a practice known as forum shopping.

In drafting the Full Faith and Credit Clause, the Framers of the Constitution were motivated by a desire to unify their new country while preserving the autonomy of the states. To that end, they sought to guarantee that judgments rendered by the courts of one state would not be ignored by the courts of other states. The Supreme Court reiterated the Framers' intent when it held that the Full Faith and Credit Clause precluded any further litigation of a question previously decided by an Illinois court in Milwaukee County v. M. E. White Co., 296 U.S. 268, 56 S. Ct. 229, 80 L. Ed. 220 (1935). The Court held that by including the clause in the Constitution, the Framers intended to make the states "integral parts of a single nation throughout which a remedy upon a just obligation might be demanded as of right, irrespective of the state of its origin."

The Full Faith and Credit Clause is invoked primarily to enforce judgments. When a valid judgment is rendered by a court that has jurisdiction over the parties, and the parties receive proper notice of the action and a reasonable opportunity to be heard, the Full Faith and Credit Clause requires that the judgment receive the same effect in other states as in the state where it is entered. A party who obtains a judgment in one state may petition the court in another state to enforce the judgment. When this is done, the parties do not relitigate the issues, and the court in the second state is obliged to fully recognize and honor the judgment of the first court in determining the enforceability of the judgment and the procedure for its execution.

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.

During the 1980s and 1990s, the Full Faith and Credit Clause was applied to new matters. Child Custody determinations had historically fallen under the jurisdiction of state courts, and before the 1970s, other states did not accord them full faith and credit enforcement. As a result, a divorced parent who was unhappy with one state's custody decision could sometimes obtain a more favorable ruling from another state. This was an incentive for a dissatisfied parent to kidnap a child and move to another state in order to petition for custody. In response to this situation, the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (UCCJA) was adopted by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws in 1968. By 1984, every state had adopted a version of the UCCJA. In 1980, Congress passed the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (28 U.S.C.A. § 1738A), which aids enforcement and promotes finality in child custody decisions by providing that valid custody decrees are entitled to full faith and credit enforcement in other states. The Violence against Women Act of 1994 (Pub. L. No. 103-322 [codified in scattered sections of 8 U.S.C.A., 18 U.S.C.A., 42 U.S.C.A.]) extends full faith and credit to the enforcement of protective orders, which previously were not enforced except in the state where they were rendered. This gave a new measure of protection to victims who moved to a different state after obtaining a protective order in one state.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Full+Faith+and+Credit+Clause

Source and Hierarchy of Law

United States Constitution
The Constitution of the United States is the "supreme law of the land;" it provides the basis for the United States government, and guarantees the freedom and rights of all United States citizens. No laws may contradict any of the Constitution's principles and no governmental authority in the United States is exempt from complying with it. The federal courts have the sole authority to interpret the Constitution and to evaluate the federal constitutionality of federal or state laws.

International Treaties
Treaties entered into by the United States are also considered the supreme law of the land pursuant to the United States Constitution, as are federal laws. In the case of a conflict between a treaty and a federal statute, the one that is later in time or more specific will typically control. Treaties to which the United States are a party may be found in the United States Treaties Service, the Statutes at Large, the Treaties and other International Acts Series issued by the State Department, as well as the United Nations Treaty Series. Treaties are often implemented by federal statutes.

Federal Statutes
Federal Statutes are published first in Slip Law, then in the Statutes at Large, and subsequently in the United States Code.

Agency Rules and Executive Orders
Federal administrative bodies issue rules and regulations of a quasi-legislative character; valid federal regulations have the force of law and preempt state laws and rules. Rules and regulations may be issued only under statutory authority granted by Congress. The President also has broad powers to issue executive orders. An executive order is a directive from the President to other officials in the executive branch. Proposed and final rules, executive orders, and other executive branch notices are published daily in the Federal Register. No person may be subject to any rule required to be published in the Federal Register and not so published. Every federal agency must publish: descriptions of its organizational structure; general statements of how the agency functions; its rules of procedures, available forms and descriptions of all papers, final reports or examinations; and, all substantive rules or statements of general applicability adopted by the agency. Rules may be challenged in federal court. The federal courts have sole authority to review agency rules and actions to ensure that they are legal under the substantive federal statute. Final administrative rules are published first in the Federal Register and then in the Code of Federal Regulation.

Judicial Opinions
The United States is a common law country. Every United States state has a legal system based on the common law, except Louisiana (which relies on the French civil code). Common law has no statutory basis; judges establish common law by applying previous decisions (precedents) to present cases. Although typically affected by statutory authority, broad areas of the law, most notably relating to property, contracts, and torts are traditionally part of the common law. These areas of the law are mostly within the jurisdiction of the states, and thus state courts are the primary source of common law. Federal common law is relatively narrow in scope, being limited primarily to clearly federal issues that have not been addressed by a statute.

Reported decisions of the United States Supreme Court and of most of the state appellate courts can be found in the official reporter of the respective courts. Those decided from at least 1887 to date can also be found in the National Reporter System, a system of unofficial reporters. Decisions of lower state courts are not published officially, but can usually be found in unofficial reports. When referring to a case, a citation typically includes the name of the case and the volume and pages of the reporter, as well as the date. For example, as follows: Kleppe v. New Mexico, 426 U.S. 529 (1976). Citations to federal courts of appeals are found in volumes abbreviated F., F.2d, or F.3d, and district courts are in volumes abbreviated F. Supp. The decisions of other specialized federal courts such as claims of bankruptcy decisions are also reported.

The system for citing state cases is similar. A correct citation would be: Wagen v. Ford Motor Co., 97 Wis. 2d 260, 294 N.W. 2d 437 (1980), meaning the case was decided in 1980, and is found on page 260 of volume 97 of the second series of Wisconsin State Reporters (the official reporter), as well as on page 437 of volume 294 of the second Northwestern set of the National Reporter System.

State Constitutions and Statutes
State constitutions are the supreme law within the state. State statutes must conform to the respective state's constitution. All state constitutions and legislation can be preempted by federal legislation or the federal Constitution. Municipal charters, ordinances, rules, and regulations apply only to local issues; they typically can be preempted by either state or federal law.

http://okezielaw.com/source_hierarchy_law.html

Now, let me walk you through this. Put together the function of the Full Faith and Credit Clause. Then go down the list of authorities until you find the document that contains the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

(I'll give you a hint, it's right at the top)

That means, you can argue all you want about timing of when laws are passed, it DOESN'T matter. By arguing that DOMA doesn't have to answer to a clause of the Constitution, you are making the argument that the Constitution is no longer the supreme law of the land.

Seriously, you're embarrassing yourself.

Sarah., # 1.160,

So DOMA was passed by Congress, but you stopped too soon.

Article 4, Section 1: ...; And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effects thereof.

Is that not what the Congress did?

Congress can only pass laws that are Constitutional. That's why we have a SCOTUS.

Sarah, # 1.162,

Yes, that I do understand. However, ...the Effects thereof. ...is in the constitution. My question is, will that bit affect the possible way SCOTUS might rule. To me at appears to be a bit of a 'catch-all' phrase, letting Congress do what they want.

As I actually want an answer...Grrrrr...lol

Either you're pro-life or you're pro-death.

@ KCBones - One can also be pro-boner

KCBones

Either you're pro-life or you're pro-death.

========

Not so certain. Seems like a lot of self-proclaimed pro-life folks don't mind equipping a whole heck of a lot of people with very pro-death weapons.

There are many prochoice advocates that do not believe the option of abortion is personally right for them, however they respect everyone's right to follow their own personal beliefs. Until it is proven when life actually begins, that is their right.

The point is, whether with gay rights or woman's rights, it's not that you are expected to agree with someone's decision on how to live there own life, just don't push your beliefs on them or change laws to force them to live their lives dictated by your personal religious docterine.

We all need to have respect, or at least tolerance, for each others differences.

I most assuredly support equal rights. But be careful what you wish for. Removal of all mention of marraige from federal laws and regulations would also result in equal rights. Is that what you want?

The only thing that gay marriage threatens is bigotry.

KCBones

Either you're pro-life or you're pro-death.

I fail to see what one has to do with the other, regardless if I agree with that statement or not.

He's pointing out that jumping to extremes is a woefully ignorant worldview, especially when the only way to be correct is to side with you.

re: # 4.2,

If you believe life begins at conception, and oppose murder, you oppose abortion.

It's actually quite a simple concept for a functioning mind.

That's why the 'pro-choice' crowd amuses me so, when they name-call the 'pro-life' crowd.

They're saying 'we don't support anti-murder people', meaning they support murder.

Rather, the 'pro-choice' crowd should be saying 'We respectfully disagree as to when life begins, and here is why.'

Unfortunately, PC has swamped their IQ, preventing logical brain function.

can you please point out on the marriage certificate where it states the people who wish to marry must procreate ?

if you can find it, then you can also tell the heterosexual infertile married couples, the heterosexual senior citizen married couples and the heterosexual married couples who willfully don't have children -- all their marriage rights are now denied :)

thanks !

You must also oppose all the opposite-sex marriages where the partners have no ability or desire to procreate.

marco-399856

If gays can produce a child in there own wedlock they'll get my vote. Till then i'll wait for roberts to cave in.

As soon as you can show us that hetero sexual marriage REQUIRES the couple to be capable of producing a child, I will agree with you.

Until then, your arguement against gay marriage is a complete failure.

Marco, I see where you're going, but children don't necessarily have to result from a marriage. However, in many cultures, religions, and even by law in some cases, a marriage must be consummated to be legal. I guess you have to get a little mud on the shovel.

My daughter and I were talking about this just last night, it'll be good for kids waiting to be adopted.

WHAT???!!!

I want all marriage to be outlawed, both gay and straight

OK, I have to say it. WOW that was random... from circus freaks to texting teens to gun rights in two sentences. BRAVO!

At random, here's the cure that worked well in my household for texting teens... I told my kids if I ever saw them near a car and texting, regardless if it was moving or they were even in it, I was turning off the text feature of their phone. Talk about putting the fear of G-d in a child!

But even less than that were killed in Benghazi and Republicans are still holding hearings on it. Hypocrisy much?

A President disappears from contact while an American Ambassador is murdered along with five other citizens, and you think that is OK, JDCARLIN? It's not a wonder you voted for Obama. The fact of the matter is, there is alot more to Benghazi that your Fuquetard-in-Chief is willing to admit. And when it comes out, his pathetic arse will be impeached. But you go right ahead and fight for him. He deserves to have people like you on his side.

I don't give a ratz azzz about Benghazi. No different than Regans Olliegate, Clintons Pussygate, Bush's Weapons of mass confusion. Its all BS. Great big heaps of steaming hot smelly turds all designed to take your mind off of what is really the issue. You want to bring up Benghazi? What could we have done????? Congress would not approve any protection and the Libyan Gov REFUSED to let us Patrol the area around the Embassy with weapons. Use your fking heads folks. Would you let Iranians Patrol our streets in NYC around their Embassy armed? Quit the BS. The bottom line is posturing and Politics. How about you send your favorite Politician a case of Ex-Lax. It might cure what ails them.