• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

SSM and the Full Faith and Credit Clause

Does the Full Faith and Credit Clause mean that an Anti-SSM state must recognize a SS

  • Yes, it is unconstitutional for a state to withhold recognition of a SSM as per the FFaC clause

    Votes: 16 53.3%

  • No, it is not unconstitutional for a state to withhold recognition of a SSM as per the FFaC clause

    Votes: 6 20.0%

  • Other/Don't know

    Votes: 8 26.7%
  • Total voters
    30
CanadaJohn said:
Sorry, I didn't ignore the "thrust" of your argument - I appreciate it - I simply point out that it is better to have society grow to accept something willingly, or have younger people take over from older generations and provide greater acceptance, than it is to force something on people. It happened with abortion, and it's been argued, by Ginsburg as well, that had they not forced it, as they did, it may have evolved with greater acceptance over time. Obamacare is similar - because people feel it was forced upon them, they are resistant, even if parts of it are very desireable.

In-your-face dictation of how you will act is never the best way to build consensus. I'll tell you, quite plainly, that had same sex marriage advocates agreed to accept a different term for their unions - such as the term "union" - provided that the government acrued to same sex unions the exact same legal status, benefits and recognition as heterosexual marriage, there would have been far greater acceptance than there already is. For whatever reason, SSM advocates insisted upon co-opting and pushing the "marriage" part of same sex unions for what appears to many as just political reasons. That's not a way to draw people to your cause and make friends.
Click to expand...

But we see on many issues society doesn't grow into it, the younger generations continue the unconstitutional denial of civil liberties brave Americans fought each other over... who gets to decide the really big issues of the day, each individual state or the UNITED STATES?

As we type back and forth the polls show 53% of AMERICANS favor SSM. Those who wish to deny in a delaying action against history, be it slavery, equal access to schooling, interracial marriage, and now same sex. At the time of the Loving decision 73% of America was against mixing the races through legally recognized marriage. there was no blood in the streets rioting over it by those who disagreed. Now we accept interracial at roughly 75%.

Coddling society and being so sensitive to the opponent feelings is a liberal 'fault'. Standing up for the correct thing no matter what WAS once a 'conservative' talking point...

what happened???? :confused:
 
Tucker Case said:
With parts of DOMA recently being struck down, I'm curious as to what people think about section 2:



Defense of Marriage Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

To me, this seems to be in violation of the full Faith and Credit Clause of the US constitution Full Faith and Credit Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



So the poll Question is simple:

Does the Full Faith and Credit Clause mean that an Anti-SSM state must recognize a SSM form another state, constitutionally?

Yes, it is unconstitutional for a state to withhold recognition of a SSM as per the FFaC clause

No, it is not unconstitutional for a state to withhold recognition of a SSM as per the FFaC clause

Other/Don't know
Click to expand...
I voted "yes," but I would have preferred an option for, "yeah... Duh."
 
digsbe said:
No, a state that bans SSM should not have to recognize a same sex marriage done in a state where it is legal. It is an abuse of the FF&C cause to essentially give a state the power to set policy for the nation, especially when many states ban SSM at the level of their state constitutions.
Click to expand...

That is bull****. A state can only set its own laws and must give full faith and credit to other states. A state that Hans first cousin marriage cannot deny benefits to a first cousin marriage from another state, for example.
 
notquiteright said:
But we see on many issues society doesn't grow into it, the younger generations continue the unconstitutional denial of civil liberties brave Americans fought each other over... who gets to decide the really big issues of the day, each individual state or the UNITED STATES?

As we type back and forth the polls show 53% of AMERICANS favor SSM. Those who wish to deny in a delaying action against history, be it slavery, equal access to schooling, interracial marriage, and now same sex. At the time of the Loving decision 73% of America was against mixing the races through legally recognized marriage. there was no blood in the streets rioting over it by those who disagreed. Now we accept interracial at roughly 75%.

Coddling society and being so sensitive to the opponent feelings is a liberal 'fault'. Standing up for the correct thing no matter what WAS once a 'conservative' talking point...

what happened???? :confused:
Click to expand...

Actually, a strong conservative principle, at least where I come from, is that government should not involve itself unnecessarily in the societal mores of its citizenry. As I've stated many times before, if the government wasn't in the marriage business we wouldn't have this problem.
 
Out till later this evening. :2wave:

Wedding to attend at 1830.

Be well.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Actually, a strong conservative principle, at least where I come from, is that government should not involve itself unnecessarily in the societal mores of its citizenry. As I've stated many times before, if the government wasn't in the marriage business we wouldn't have this problem.
Click to expand...

Your strongly held principle of government out of the marriage business stands in stark contrast to many others who believe they too hold strong conservative principles that MUST 'defend' marriage from gays and government MUST do that. The Federal Marriage Amendment came from social conservatives. The key word here is 'unnecessarily' and like happiness it means different things to different people.

What one group terms a societal more is another's civil rights. This isn't a vote on gay being good or bad, it is equal treatment. As long as there are 'death taxes', insurance issues, medical permission, adoption, healthcare laws the government will be knee deep in marriage. Can't wish it away.

Now compared to other social issues like who gets to sit at what lunch counter or classroom, who gets to control the reproductive cycle of a woman- marriage seems a very simple issue not fraught with the intense emotion of the former. Interracial marriage didn't set off the protests integration of the Mississippi Higher Education system did.

But to go back the the main point in my train of thought... at their own pace means some citizens will never see the same treatment under the law most other citizens receive in other states. The Constitution doesn't segregate the citizenry, we are the UNITED STATES, not a Commonwealth. At some point FF&C comes into play.
 
notquiteright said:
What one group terms a societal more is another's civil rights. This isn't a vote on gay being good or bad, it is equal treatment. As long as there are 'death taxes', insurance issues, medical permission, adoption, healthcare laws the government will be knee deep in marriage. Can't wish it away.
Click to expand...

I don't see why any of those issues makes marriage a necessary part of the governments functions.
 
notquiteright said:
Your strongly held principle of government out of the marriage business stands in stark contrast to many others who believe they too hold strong conservative principles that MUST 'defend' marriage from gays and government MUST do that. The Federal Marriage Amendment came from social conservatives. The key word here is 'unnecessarily' and like happiness it means different things to different people.

What one group terms a societal more is another's civil rights. This isn't a vote on gay being good or bad, it is equal treatment. As long as there are 'death taxes', insurance issues, medical permission, adoption, healthcare laws the government will be knee deep in marriage. Can't wish it away.

Now compared to other social issues like who gets to sit at what lunch counter or classroom, who gets to control the reproductive cycle of a woman- marriage seems a very simple issue not fraught with the intense emotion of the former. Interracial marriage didn't set off the protests integration of the Mississippi Higher Education system did.

But to go back the the main point in my train of thought... at their own pace means some citizens will never see the same treatment under the law most other citizens receive in other states. The Constitution doesn't segregate the citizenry, we are the UNITED STATES, not a Commonwealth. At some point FF&C comes into play.
Click to expand...

I won't belabor the point - I'll simply end by saying, if you follow the trends in support of SSM, you will note the great strides that have been achieved, particularly in the opinions of young people who don't carry the same baggage with them - my concern, as someone who supports SS unions, but wishes the government wasn't involved, leaving marriage as a religious rite, is that any attempt to take this ruling and force it down the throats of states that are not ready will do nothing but set back what should be the real goal, broader acceptance, not just artificial legal rights that governments created and attached to marriage in an effort to mold society.
 
since marriage is a right yes states should have to recognize thier RIGHTS.

Is somebody honestly saying that its ok if a couple gets married in one state and has all the state and federal rights of marriage but is driving through another state, gets in a car accident they should lose all their marriage rights until they leave that state?????

what if your spouse is just in that state by themsleves and gets in an accident, is it ok for that hospital to deny medical decisions or visitation rights or not notify you because that state doesnt recognize your marriage? of course not thats complete BS lol

eventually now that DOMA is dead this issue will get pushed and it will be righted
 
CanadaJohn said:
I won't belabor the point - I'll simply end by saying, if you follow the trends in support of SSM, you will note the great strides that have been achieved, particularly in the opinions of young people who don't carry the same baggage with them - my concern, as someone who supports SS unions, but wishes the government wasn't involved, leaving marriage as a religious rite, is that any attempt to take this ruling and force it down the throats of states that are not ready will do nothing but set back what should be the real goal, broader acceptance, not just artificial legal rights that governments created and attached to marriage in an effort to mold society.
Click to expand...

My marriage was not a religious rite, I am quite happy to not have been married in a church but a Federal Judge's chambers. I consider my marriage as valid as any done in a Church and my marriage has lasted 26 years, longer than many church weddings. Many, who are not particularly religious, feel their union is a marriage just like any in a Church.

The real shift has happened in the last 20 years or so, pretty fast die-off so I be thinking it isn't young people but ALL people and the majority will not see anything being forced down any throat but a long awaited equality that was too long in coming. Just like interracial marriage.

But as usual you ignore the crux, some states will never permit SSM and that isn't how the UNITED STATES works.

But it is a bit amusing to see 'conservatives' bemoan the government creating 'artificial legal rights' to mold society when it is a benchmark talking point of the 'conservatives' since I can remember. Seems to me that now with those 'artificial legal rights' being extended to all who wish to marry, not just the approved by the right wing religious crowd, some 'conservatives' are bored with the whole thing and want all legal rights revoked.

Seems weak....
 
notquiteright said:
My marriage was not a religious rite, I am quite happy to not have been married in a church but a Federal Judge's chambers. I consider my marriage as valid as any done in a Church and my marriage has lasted 26 years, longer than many church weddings. Many, who are not particularly religious, feel their union is a marriage just like any in a Church.

The real shift has happened in the last 20 years or so, pretty fast die-off so I be thinking it isn't young people but ALL people and the majority will not see anything being forced down any throat but a long awaited equality that was too long in coming. Just like interracial marriage.

But as usual you ignore the crux, some states will never permit SSM and that isn't how the UNITED STATES works.

But it is a bit amusing to see 'conservatives' bemoan the government creating 'artificial legal rights' to mold society when it is a benchmark talking point of the 'conservatives' since I can remember. Seems to me that now with those 'artificial legal rights' being extended to all who wish to marry, not just the approved by the right wing religious crowd, some 'conservatives' are bored with the whole thing and want all legal rights revoked.

Seems weak....
Click to expand...

Far be it for me to try to take that broad, sweeping brush out of your "progressive" hand, but just to disabuse you of your view of this conservative, I strongly believe that there should be no government program that accrues benefit to any "coupling" that does not equally accrue to all individuals in their own right. If you truly believe in equality and equal protection under the law, you would strongly oppose any government tax or benefit program that treats two individuals differently solely based on their having a state sponsored certificate. If you want to be truly progressive, you wouldn't be looking to expand the extra benefits club, you'd be looking to eliminate the club entirely.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Far be it for me to try to take that broad, sweeping brush out of your "progressive" hand, but just to disabuse you of your view of this conservative, I strongly believe that there should be no government program that accrues benefit to any "coupling" that does not equally accrue to all individuals in their own right. If you truly believe in equality and equal protection under the law, you would strongly oppose any government tax or benefit program that treats two individuals differently solely based on their having a state sponsored certificate. If you want to be truly progressive, you wouldn't be looking to expand the extra benefits club, you'd be looking to eliminate the club entirely.
Click to expand...

Did I say YOU? I note 'conservatives' peel the onion when it serves. Traditionally it has been the 'conservatives' holding hetro marriage and a stay at home mom as THE ultimate expression of a strong society and a strong nation. I know that makes you uncomfortable and not every 'conservative' is in exact lock step with the social conservatives.

Social conservatives attack the social safety net as destroying the family, not progressives. I am lukewarm at best about tax breaks...feel very strongly a same sex couple should get medical benefits and the ability to have a say in each other's care if incapacitated. Should be able to get a dependent card if in the military, should get to avoid the 'death tax' so reviled by the right wing.

You are attempting to put progressives in with ultra liberals. I didn't try and push you into libertarian for your shirking the social conservative agenda... be as considerate to me and address what I type, not what you want to hype... :2wave:
 
cpwill said:
I find it fascinating because usually you are a libertarian-esque fellow; but here you are calling for an expanded role for the central government in determining social policy.
Click to expand...

Because marriage between ANY two consenting adults should be a right.

Leaving it up to the states will just make a mess of it as some will have it and some will not.

Some things are best left to the states - this is not one of them.
 
I think a lot of it depends on their State of residence, not where they were married. No jumping the border and bouncing back with a license. I hate that answer but I think it's probably the legal one.
 
DA60 said:
Because marriage between ANY two consenting adults should be a right.
Click to expand...

Because...... you declare marriage to be thus defined?
 
Tucker Case said:
No state can nullify or abrogate another state's definition of marriage. The state still has control over their decision not to issue marriage certificates to SS couples. Their definition remains intact. The same sex marriages that would exist in said state due to the FFaC clause would be marriages according to the state which the marriage license was issued, and according to the federal government, and for legal purposes within the state of residence, but they are free to say "Nope, that's not a marriage. It's something else."
Click to expand...

What the issue is really about, Tucker, is whether or not a couple from South Carolina can go to New York, get married, and have their marriage be in effect all through the country. Even if South Carolina won't marry them (issue them a license) in the first place. For a heterosexual couple, that would happen, but for a gay couple, it would not. And South Carolina should have to honor a marriage license issued in another state. That's why it evokes FFnC.

cpwill said:
What a fascinating argument to make - so you disagree with the recent supreme court ruling and find that the Federal Government does, in fact, have the right to impose its' definition of marriage on the States?
Click to expand...

"Impose its definition of marriage" what a stupid way to say it. No, that's not what's going on here. It's that the constitution doesn't allow discrimination in marriage based on sexuality. There is no "definition of marriage" and nobody is imposing anything. The constitution is securing people's basic civil rights.

Tucker Case said:
I completely agree with you. I'm of the belief that whenever rules are forced upon people, it only serves to increase their resistance to such rules, which increases animosity between groups.
Click to expand...

So let's impose fewer rules. Let's not have the rule that infringes on people's fundamental right to marry based on gender or sexuality.
 
Paschendale said:
"Impose its definition of marriage" what a stupid way to say it. No, that's not what's going on here. It's that the constitution doesn't allow discrimination in marriage based on sexuality. There is no "definition of marriage" and nobody is imposing anything. The constitution is securing people's basic civil rights.
Click to expand...

to declare homosexual couples equally deserving of the title of marriage is indeed to put definition on it. what DA60 was suggesting was absolutely that the federal government government should define marriage as any consensual relationship between two adults who want to be defined as such.


So let's impose fewer rules. Let's not have the rule that infringes on people's fundamental right to marry based on gender or sexuality.
Click to expand...

We already have none.
 
polgara said:
:thanks: It's predicted to be 99 degrees tomorrow, so if I do venture outdoors, it will be at 0500 until 0515...long enough for the dogs to get their business done! :eek: It's what I have been doing for the past week to let my daughter sleep in a bit before she has to go to work! :lamo:
Click to expand...

its 109 today and supposed to reach up to 120 by the weekend.

shall i go swimming in my pool, or is it just to hot for that?
 
ernst barkmann said:
its 109 today and supposed to reach up to 120 by the weekend.

shall i go swimming in my pool, or is it just to hot for that?
Click to expand...

Good evening, EB! :2wave:

:lamo: If I feel that I should take a bar of soap with me to the pool, it's too hot to go swimming! A cool indoor shower works better!

Where on earth are you located with those temps? :shock:
 
Yes, but from my readings, since the Supremes didn't specifically mention this, it will keep a lot of lawyers employed fighting this battle for the next few years.
 
Lakryte said:
Should a state be allowed to define marriage as between two people of the same race?
Click to expand...

or not to notify a person of their spouses death or give visitation rights or medical decision making powers, or allow a spouse to cheat or allow a person to testify against thier spouse in that state etc etc etc


its nonsensical for anybody to think its right for a state to do this.

eventually these issues will get pushed and with the fall of DOMA legal marriage will be legal marriage everywhere
 
Last edited:
polgara said:
Good evening, EB! :2wave:

:lamo: If I feel that I should take a bar of soap with me to the pool, it's too hot to go swimming! A cool indoor shower works better!

Where on earth are you located with those temps? :shock:
Click to expand...

the great southwest, of AZ.

anything over 88 degrees feels to warm to the skin, 82 is the prefect temp i think.
 
Lakryte said:
Should a state be allowed to define marriage as between two people of the same race?
Click to expand...

their would be less opposition to gay marriage, if governments would stop making laws, and polices, after its been made legal.

homosexual relationships will be taught in schools, and religious people if in business will be force to pay benefits to SS couples.

some of the reasons governments need to be out of the marriage business.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom