Is there a difference in quality between skin color and sexuality?
====================================

In humans, both come in all shades of the rainbow.
=================================

Well said, Kim.

Thank you. We are beasts with two backs.
=========================

While I wouldn't like the outcome, I think the full faith and credit clause would mean that a agy marriage performed in Boston would have to be legally acknowledged in Houston.

Of course the political impetus of this would likely be the same as the state constitution amendments. A federal amendment would be forthcoming, which would make it the definitive word (subject to 5 justices finding new rights dancing in the shadows of the consitution). The democratic congress would at first reject the amendment, but then is likely to either cave in 2008 or 2010 (depending on when the case ripens) or find that there is a reason state amendments are passing at such overwhelming margins. Given that 27 states have passed protection of marriage amendments and 14 more are at varying stages of putting an amendment forward to vote on, the chances of the amendment going through are relatively high. Which would then leave the pro-gay marriage people in worse shape because they not only would have to convince a majority of the voters to change the law, they would have to convince a super majority to repeal a constitutional amendment.

As an aside, while I disagree with Kim, I note her swimming against the tide of political correctness in her statement of support and solidarity with the pedophiles. Isn't their desire for young children just another shade of sexuality?

Again, marriage is legally defined between a man and a woman (regardless of race, color or creed). Not between a man and a dog, or a horse, or a computer, or another man.

It is this sort of liberal idiocy that will resurrect the Republicans
from their doldrums and bring them back into power.

Well said Michael. This will wake up the base in a very big way. ww

There is a long held ('39 or '40 I believe) public policy exception to the full faith and credit clause that essentially holds that one state's laws can't be used to violate another state's laws in the same "arena" so to speak. So if state A allows gay marriage and state B forbids it by statute, you can't get married in state A and then move to state B and force them to recognize the marriage.

"Isn't their desire for young children just another shade of sexuality"

Yes, but I'll take the libertarian view on this one:

Gay marriage hurts no one. It may offend some, but I thought only lefties believed in laws and rules designed to protect people from being offended.

Pedophilia, on the other hand does great harm to certain persons and is therefore not comparable to gay marriage as you seem to want it to be.

A federal amendment would be forthcoming, which would make it the definitive word (subject to 5 justices finding new rights dancing in the shadows of the consitution).

I'm not sure what you mean by that. The supreme court has absolutely no say in constitutional amendments. Congress could pass and the states ratify a new amendment making all women slaves belonging to their fathers or husbands and the supreme court couldn't do a damned thing about it because the instant it's ratified it becomes the law.

As far as what should be done...

We are (were) a republic. The Founding Fathers rightly believed that most of the government should be at the level closest to the governed. That is, the degree to which government affects your life should be in decreasing order of local, county/parish , state, and lastly federal.

Having said that... if residents of one state go to another state in order to circumvent the laws in their state of residency, I believe that the state of residency should not be forced to recognize the act/ contract/ whatever which was performed in the outside of the state.

Of course, that still leaves open the problem of residents of stateA, where the contract is legal, moving to stateB, where the contract is not...

What should be done is to separate the concepts of marriage and the civil benefits that marriage confers.

Marriage should become a solely religious construct with no sanction in civil law. Denominations/sects can all have their own criteria for what's permissible. A marriage performed in a church binds a couple only in the eyes of that religion. It has no effect on the civil status of said couple. To my mind, the current practice of granting religious authorities the power to civilly bind a couple infringes the Establishment Clause and should be considered unconstitutional.

The civil benefits of couples should be extended to any and all couples exclusive of the usual blood relative exclusions, as there's a valid public health issue there. Civil ceremonies would be performed by the applicable State or local official, and said ceremonies would have no effect in any church unless a church so decides to honor the civil ceremony.

This gives both sides part of what they want. Churches are not required to sanction gay marriage and the definition of marriage reverts back to the religious underpinnings it's always had. Civil law couples get the benefits they want and can have a religious marriage if they find the right church.

"The supreme court has absolutely no say in constitutional amendments."

Bullshit. The Supreme Court gets to decide what the ammendment really means. They "interpret" the Constitution, remember? (I guess 'cause it's written in English?) The Constitution is a living thing, remember? The meaning of a clause in the Constitution changes over time, remember?

At least that's the dogma the left believes in...

To Michael and WildWillie: I think it is sad that this would be the cause to "resurrect the Republicans from their doldrums." I do not support gay marriage, although I voted against Ohio's ammendment to ban it due to language that also banned civil unions. However, I would much rather Republicans snap out of their doldrums over issuse like, say, the war... or corruption... or pork... or any of the multitude of issues much more pressing right now.

If You voted against the amendment You voted in favor of gay marriage! Sorry.

So Captain, using you're logic, I could be married (or not), form a civil union with the wife of my best friend, and when I die, she inherits all my worldly goods and wouldn't have to pay taxes on it (up to a certain amount).

And why can't the civil union apply to a family member? A homosexual couple can't procreate, neither would a brother and sister (in a strictly platonic union). Why would you discriminate against one set and not the other? The brother or sister should have the same 'civil union' benefits as the homosexual couple, to do otherwise would be disrimination.

Civil unions opens up a whole new can of worms.

Europeans are way ahead of us again (as they are oft repeating) in the area of a declining birthrate - a factor that has contributed to their economic problem.

To address this, governments tend to subsidize both marriage and children, also finding that a good way to purchase votes. In the US it is likely that we will go from a marriage penalty in the tax code a few years ago, to a marriage subsidy sometime in the future. It does not take Nostradamus to make this forecast.

Subsidy of gay unions will then become a further issue and not a few will object to this subsidy, one part of which group become parents at very low rates.

So the Feds will have a role to play and the American people have spoken loudly on this subject, State Constitutional Amendments passing by wide margins everywhere they have been introduced.

I'm against gay marriage, and for unions, but I would be happy to bow to the will of the majority.

The problem is going to come when the courts reach into their bag of tricks and divine another unenumerated right, over those standing State Constitutional Amendments.

That would be wrong, legal arguments notwithstanding.

I support civil unions, but not if they are given equal status to marriage. Issues like hospital visitation, wills, etc. should be non-issues, however tax incentives, child credits, etc. should not. Stable, traditional marriage is the best environment for a child to grow up in, and the governmnent should be able to incentivize it in the interrest of the country.
Now, I'll grant you that a stable gay marriage can be better than an unstable or abusive hetero one, but that is more a case for penalties on marriages that fail or criminal actions rather than opening the way for more unstable hetero or homo ones.

In the end, Justice Anthony Kennedy will decide. No one else's vote matters in this country more than his.

The Full faith and credit clause reads:

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 there of.

Note that the second sentence gives Congress the right to place limits on these proceedings. Hence, for example, states have individual regulations and requirements for licenses to practice law. Being admitted to the bar in one state does not mean that you automatically get to practice law in all 50 states. Just because you have a license to carry concealed in your state doesn't automatically give you the ability to carry concealed in all 50 states. And it is the second sentence that gave congress the authority to pass the Defense of Marriage Act.

The real problem with gay marriage and Federal Law is the case of Lawrence v. Texas. It was that Supreme Court decision that the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (MA-SJC) used to find that gay marriage was, basically, a right. That decision can also be interpretted as making the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional.

Personal opinion: I agree with Justice Scalia in his dissent. Lawrence is a bad idea that was badly done and creates a raft of problems. For example, Scalia correctly pointed out that by striking down morality or social hygiene laws, the SCOTUS was opening the door to same-sex marriage (which did happen), adult incest, polygamy, and prostitution. You can take the MA-SJC decision, substitute "prostitution" for "homosexuality", and come up with a perfectly good legal argument for making prostitution legal. I don't think that liberals will let that happen, but I don't think they can come up with a reasonable arguement to the prevent it. So they will do what they always do: the Law means what we want it to mean, and it doesn't matter if it doesn't make sense. And, as in the Bowers decision that they trashed along the way, they reserve the right to change it any time they see fit.

Am I in favor of gay-marriage? Yes, if it's passed by state legislatures and the Defense of Marriage Act should be removed by the Congress.
Am I in favor of lunatics trashing the Constitution and our history of judicial review to get it done quick-and-dirty? No.

There used to be institutions that were men only or women only. People simply could not handle that a club could be gender exclusive (which is their right to be, btw). Now here is this institution of marriage, which again is exclusive, and again people want to teat that down too.

Except for the last sentence of the 2nd paragraph, I agree 100% with Captain Ned's post.

While I'm presonally o.k. with gay marriage, it seems pretty obvious that most Americans are not so I would the see solution being a compromise and I would propose pretty much what Captain Ned did.

P. Bunyon,

So taking the libertarian point of view. A child of 17 years, 364 days can not make their own decision on sexuality, but an 18 year old could? Kim was saying its all just shades of sexuality. Once you adopt that view point, it becomes a slippery slope. That one day changes it from a shade of sexuality to a horrible crime. That one day changes the ability to give consent and not. What a magical day.

Tlaloc,

If you don't understand the supreme courts free form role in deciding what amendments mean or not you haven't been paying attention. For example, consider the 14th and 15th amendment and then look at 'affirmative action'. Whatever the language, the supremes can make it mean something else.

kevino,

Re-reading the relevant constitution, I think you may be right in the defense of marriage act having more teeth. Looking at it another way, what if a state passed a law that any gay marriage is anulled when either participant enters their jurisdicition. Now we have two states with results that would seem to contradict each other. One says the two are joined, the other says the joining is dissolved like it never happened. Of course going down that path has its own pitfalls.

The ability for congress to determine the effect would seem to lie within the congressional power. As such, the defense of marriage act wording becomes relevant.

First, it provides
that no State shall be required to give effect to a law of any other
State with respect to a same-sex "marriage." Second, it defines the
words "marriage" and "spouse" for purposes of Federal law.

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/leg23.htm

"Churches are not required to sanction gay marriage and the definition of marriage reverts back to the religious underpinnings it's always had."

by: CaptainNed

What makes you think that this would be the end of it? It would only be a matter of time before the ACLU supported some gay couples legal suite against a major church for descrimination.

Liberalism/Communism are like a cancer, in that they can only survive so long as they have healthy tissue to feed on. Once the host dies, then the cancer dies. Lung cancer doesn't stop at the boaders of your lungs, it spreads to surrounding tissue. Liberalism must have a capital base to support it. In this case the base would be a functioning church, that the liberal crowd would like to see destroyed. What better way than to force the members to accept gay marriage as an acceptable doctrine, thus causing many of the members to leave.

Liberals are unable to create a functioning country on their own, so they have decided to highjack this one. The joke on them is, that once they succede in destroying capitalism, the country will die, just as the cancer patient dies.

Well yetanotherjohn,

I think you're turning it into an apples and oranges thing. Yes, there are tons of shades of gray, but sometimes we have to draw lines and we try to do it at the best place possible.

Some 12 year olds are more mature and better equipped to make sexual decisions than some 30 year olds, but overall we decided to draw the line somewhere and hopefully err on the side of caution.

Still I think it can be more easily established that while homosexuality and gay marriage harms no one, pedophilia clearly does and they are entirely different things- apples and oranges. Yes, some people do view homosexuals on the same level as all sexual deviants, but I don't think that's right at all-- at best it's just opinion, and only to leftists do opinion and conjecture become fact.

The libertarian in me says, if they aren't hurting anyone (other than possibly themselves) then let them do it. If you want to refute this argument from a libertarian standpoint, then you have to show who it hurts and how.

I do see the potential slippery slopes here, I just don't think your example was one of them.

I too would like the republican base to come alive for other matters such as illegal immigration, over spending, government growth, but the large picture is most americans, although tolerant of gays, do not respect their lifestyle. Let me help you dimmers; WW you are a bigot, homophobe, hate monger, yada, yada. ww

All of what Captain Ned said.

The gov't is not in the marriage business, period. Gov't should define civil unions (age and degree of blood relation ONLY) and leave the institution of marriage to the churches.

Do any of you know what marrriage is...I don't anymore. I cannot tell my 20 year old son what the purpose of marriage is.

As to patrick's dance, is anyone PLANNING this state's future? Long ago, Massachusetts was ridiculed (and admired) for trying to maintain clean living. Mind, body and soul included. It seems to me the plan for Massachusetts is anything goes. Meaningless marriages, a safe haven for illegal aliens, criminals always given multiple chances to make things right, tax the public to death, declining education standards and no morality whatsoever (I couldn't define morality at this point). This state is a farce and the public is certainly not consulted about its future...or if they are (votes for lowering taxes, petitions for voting for or against gay marriage denied, etc), the overlords put such things aside and "do what THEY consider best" for their subjects.

USMC Pilot:
Liberalism/Communism are like a cancer, in that they can only survive so long as they have healthy tissue to feed on.
[snip]
Liberals are unable to create a functioning country on their own, so they have decided to highjack this one. The joke on them is, that once they succede in destroying capitalism, the country will die, just as the cancer patient dies.

"If you saw Atlas, the giant who holds the world on his shoulders, if you saw that he stood, blood running down his chest, his knees buckling, his arms trembling but still trying to hold the world aloft with the last of his strength, and the greater the effort the heavier the world bore down upon his shoulders--what would you tell him to do?"

"I ... don't know. What ... could he do? What would you tell him?"

"To shrug."

You may find the book from which this is an excerpt interesting.

"...but the large picture is most americans, although tolerant of gays, do not respect their lifestyle. Let me help you dimmers; WW you are a bigot, homophobe, hate monger, yada, yada."

Don't fear gay marrige, WildWillie. It's not like any self-respecting homo would ever marry you.

yetanotherjohn:

In light of Lawrence v Texas the Defense of Marriage Act is probably unconstitutional. Justice Scalia, in his dissent, believed that laws against homosexual marriage would not stand after this decision. He was right: the MA Supreme Judicial Court used Lawrence to make it's finding. Justice O'Connor in her concurring opinion disagreed, saying that laws against homosexual marriage could pass a rational basis test. Unfortunately, her opinion is based on wishful thinking, and she didn't provide any reasonable logic or argument.

The only reason that the Defense of Marriage Act stands is because appropriate test cases haven't found their way through the Federal court system yet. They probably will.

Judith - Do any of you know what marriage is...I don't anymore. I cannot tell my 20 year old son what the purpose of marriage is.

What a shame. It's people like you who are screwing up this country. You probably worked on your son's self esteem rather than teach him responsibility, discipline, and the consequences for particular behavior.

It's Natures Law or God's Law. Either way, two men or two women together are NOT in ANY way normal and I for one do NOT have to tolerate their intolerance of my normalcy.

I hate it how these people are forcing their behavior down our throats (yes, it's nothing more than behavior, abhorrent as it is) and attempting to mainstream it through books, magazines, schools, and now the legislature. Why should my children have to grow up faster than NORMAL so some person can feel comfortable about their abnormal behavior?

Why do I have to explain why those two men are holding hands or kissing to my 5 year old?

Why should I have to explain anal, oral sex and AIDS to my 6 year old?

Why should I have to deal with ANY of this because a group of people want their abnormal behavior construed as OK or normal when it is NOT?

Keep your stuff to yourself and I'm OK. I could care less what gays do to themselves behind closed doors, but force it upon my children and I am not going to stand for it or tolerate it.

I have a gay brother and a gay brother-in-law and eventually my kids will figure it out, but not while they are so young. They are still kids.

Sheesh, all this gay shit pisses me off.

My thoughts FWIW.

1) The Full Faith and Credit act has been ignored by government at all levels for many, many decades. A Drivers licens in one state isn't neccesarily valied in a different state. Some states issue "Farm" licenses to drivers that are 14 or so, and those are generally recognized in the issueing state. Same with concealed weapons carry permits. Same with teaching certificates, real estate licenses, hunting/fishing/boating licenses, various and sundry proffessional licenses (lawyers?) Etc.

2) I still beleive the best answer is for the state to stop defining, sanctioning, and regulating marriage. Some current marriages might not be legal in some states even with hetero couples. In some instances the marriage of very young girls to men would be illegal in one state, not neccesarily in another. Leave it to the religious institutes to sanction marriages, or not. The local govt should just record the paperwork like they do for many other contracts. You shouldn't have to get a license to get married, the darn thing doesn't even have an experiation date.

"You shouldn't have to get a license to get married, the darn thing doesn't even have an experiation date"

LOL - that was a good one!