Gay marriage

Where do you fall?
Multiple answers permitted in the poll.

zimmer said:

Where do you fall?

Click to expand...

There's no poll...

EgoffTib said:

There's no poll...

Click to expand...

You're quick... I was just typing it in.

Cheers.

.

zimmer said:

You're quick... I was just typing it in.

Cheers.

.

Click to expand...

I'm a ninja like that. I am in favor of gay marriage, though I do not deem it a "right".

Easy answer for me. It's up to the states, and not the Federal government's business.

I support gay marriage as a Federal mandated right


Don't like it, don't attend their wedding.

Yeah I agree, it should be a federally mandated right.

I think the idea of "oh forget it, just let the states decide" is careless and dismissive. Sometimes I see it as an attempt to avoid having an opinion on gay marriage.

Cilogy said:

Yeah I agree, it should be a federally mandated right.

I think the idea of "oh forget it, just let the states decide" is careless and dismissive. Sometimes I see it as an attempt to avoid having an opinion on gay marriage.

Click to expand...

I don't think the Fed should be in the marriage business in the first place. Let the states decide and go from there.

EgoffTib said:

I don't think the Fed should be in the marriage business in the first place. Let the states decide and go from there.

Click to expand...

In that case I think the DOMA should be dumped.

My position has changed over the years even since this forum has been created. I believe it should be up to the states - period. Fed should stay out of it. Marriage is nothing but a local and state tax on citizens anyway so to define it as a guaranteed right is disingenuous. There is no natural *right* in paying taxes.

However, I do *not* believe that states should be forced to recognize other states marriages. Repeal the 14th amendment (at minimum equal protection) and we are golden.

vauge said:

My position has changed over the years even since this forum has been created. I believe it should be up to the states - period. Fed should stay out of it. Marriage is nothing but a local and state tax on citizens anyway so to define it as a guaranteed right is disingenuous. There is no natural *right* in paying taxes.

However, I do *not* believe that states should be forced to recognize other states marriages. Repeal the 14th amendment (at minimum equal protection) and we are golden.

Click to expand...

Does that included heterosexual marriages as well?

None of the above.

I think if its going to be government by the federal government, and at this point with how ingrained it is I think it has to be, then I believe they should strip the word marriage out of government completely. Let religion be the sole arbiter of the word marriage allowing the word and its meaning to keep its sanctity. At the same time, government should allow for civil unions between any two consenting adults with the benefits that are generally granted to marriage previously being granted to these civil unions.

This in theory would:

1. Preserve the sanctity of Marriage, as only individual churchs could choose to allow people to get married.
2. Allow for the benefits that government provides to marriage previously to apply equally across the board for those that are likely to be spending an extended period of time living together.

winston53660 said:

Does that included heterosexual marriages as well?

Click to expand...

Sure. Move to another state, pay another tax.

vauge said:

Sure. Move to another state, pay another tax.

Click to expand...

I see a problem with that in the FFC

Article IV Section 1.
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

I think that it should be decided federally, but that does not mean that I am against progress being made in the legislature or courts in the meantime. So I voted for the first, second and third options.

winston53660 said:

I see a problem with that in the FFC

Article IV Section 1.
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Click to expand...

Why does one have to get a new drivers license when moving to another state?

It is not a simple contract tax?

vauge said:

Why does one have to get a new drivers license when moving to another state?

It is not a simple contract?

Click to expand...

Hey I just play a lawyer on the internet not TV!:mrgreen:

danarhea said:

Easy answer for me. It's up to the states, and not the Federal government's business.

Click to expand...

Actually its no ones business
Being gay is within their rights as Americans just as its with in our rights to worship a purple chicken if we desire such.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"

These lines are what we as American are all about. How can we claim to be a the shinning light for Liberty and freedom if we deny our own people?

While I'm not terribly thrilled with it being a "right", certainly if we're going to stand for equality as a nation, it needs to be upheld at the federal level so that marriages that are legal in one state are legal in all states.

Cephus said:

While I'm not terribly thrilled with it being a "right", certainly if we're going to stand for equality as a nation, it needs to be upheld at the federal level so that marriages that are legal in one state are legal in all states.

Click to expand...

Well said.

Zimmer, why not an option for the government to get out of marriage entirely?

chevydriver1123 said:

Zimmer, why not an option for the government to get out of marriage entirely?

Click to expand...

Indeed. That is the best option. Religious marriage is completely outside the jurisdiction of the government. Replace all marriages with open civil unions and finally acknowledge it's a three way contract.

Zyphlin said:

None of the above.

I think if its going to be government by the federal government, and at this point with how ingrained it is I think it has to be, then I believe they should strip the word marriage out of government completely. Let religion be the sole arbiter of the word marriage allowing the word and its meaning to keep its sanctity. At the same time, government should allow for civil unions between any two consenting adults with the benefits that are generally granted to marriage previously being granted to these civil unions.

This in theory would:

1. Preserve the sanctity of Marriage, as only individual churchs could choose to allow people to get married.
2. Allow for the benefits that government provides to marriage previously to apply equally across the board for those that are likely to be spending an extended period of time living together.

Click to expand...

My position, exactly.

I'm not an American but I'd certainly leave such a thing to the state to decide. I don't think the federal gov't requires much power over marriage and certainly not to change its meaning.

EgoffTib said:

I don't think the Fed should be in the marriage business in the first place. Let the states decide and go from there.

Click to expand...

It's not that simple. It is impossible to leave same-sex marriage up to the states for much longer...at some point, the federal government will have to get more involved. There are all kinds of federal issues in play here. The laws would obviously differ widely from same-sex marriage states to non-same sex marriage states (or even within those groupings), which leaves plenty of room for ambiguity that only the feds could solve. David Frum, a conservative pundit at the American Enterprise Institute who is neutral in the gay marriage debate, came up with a list of scenarios to illustrate this point. Here are Frum's scenarios:

1) A man from an SSM state buys a condo in a non-SSM state. He marries another man back home—but he dies before he can write a will. Who inherits the condo?

2) Two women from an SSM state marry. One of them becomes pregnant. The couple splits up, and the woman who bore the child moves to a non-SSM state. The other woman sues for visitation rights. What should the state’s courts do?

3) A man in an SSM is accused of stock fraud. The federal Securities and Exchange Commission subpoenas his spouse. The spouse claims marital privilege and refuses to answer the SEC’s questions. May the SEC compel him to answer anyway?

4) Two women marry in an SSM state. The relationship sours. Without obtaining a divorce, one of the women moves to a non-SSM state and marries a man. Has she committed bigamy?

5) Two married men are vacationing in another state. One of them has a stroke. The hospital concludes he will never recover. Local law requires the hospital to ask the next of kin whether to maintain life support. Whom should it ask?

6) A man from an SSM state marries a foreign visitor of the same sex. Should the foreigner be entitled to U.S. residency? What if the foreign man has also adopted the American man's child?

7) A family in a non-SSM state sets up a trust for their son. The son moves to an SSM state, marries a man, and then gets divorced. The trust is the son's only financial asset. Should the courts of the SSM state take the trust into account when dividing up the couple’s assets? If yes, what happens when the trustees back in the non-SSM state refuse to comply?

8) A woman married to another woman wins a lawsuit against a corporation in a non-SSM state. The successful plaintiff dies without a will before she can collect her debt. Her closest blood relative demands that the corporation pay the relative, not the surviving
spouse. Who gets the money?