Commentary on the passage of Prop 8 in California

[guido911]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

The Minnesota Court in Baker affirmed (in 1971) that a state is not required by the constitution to issue a same-sex marriage license.  The Supreme Court denied cert. because there was a lack of a significant Federal question.  Thus, unless changed by the Supreme Court a state refusal to issue gay marriage licenses is not a Federal Question.

HOWEVER, one could argue that in light of recent Federal Attempts to do the same and the passage of a multitude of laws expressly authorizing such, it has become a Federal Question.  Consider that in 1971 no state issued gay marriage licenses (civil unions, call them what you will) - thus the merits of the claim as a full faith and credit issue was not relevant.  Currently, that issue has come to fruition.  

Where a conflict exists among state laws, and that conflict equates to an uncertain enforcement of a fundamental contract and the possible degradation of citizen rights while moving between states - it has become a Federal Question on the basis of the full faith and credit clause.

At least... in my 5 minute analysis.

For a second there I thought you were going to roll with the Contracts Clause argument. I do not think we disagree in priciple. I think we are as lost as to what is going to happen as the non "eggheads" on this forum.

[Hometown]

Excuse me but

BARF

[cannon_fodder]

Well... you can see it somewhat as a contracts argument.  But I think we both agree that would be skirting the actual issues.  Marriage is just a contract, but it is one with special rights and privileges granted by the state. Just like a multi-member LLC is really just a contract, the benneficial effect and enforcement of the special nature of that contract is granted by the state.

Hence, the general contract theory seems to fall short.  And, if that is what is really wanted - you can contract most aspects of marriage.  A will, a medical directive, joint tenancy, power of attorney.  I don't think that is the main objective of most gay-rights advocates.  

So yeah, we're both at a loss.  But it will be interesting to watch the fight.  I'm still highly amused (bemused?) that there are people as interested in preventing gay marriage as the people interested in gay marriage.

[guido911]

quote:Originally posted by pmcalk

quote:Originally posted by guido911

My personal feeling is that a "right to marry" is by no means a federal issue. This in my opinion falls under the police power of the states. However, for some insight into the federal court's  thoughts on the issue, I recommend reading Loving v. U.S. (interracial marriage) or even Skinner v. Oklahoma.

If it is not a federal issue, then how can federal law prohibit polygamy?  Why wouldn't states be able to determine that?

State legislatures do outlaw polygamy. In Oklahoma, bigamy is a felony. See, 21 O.S. Sec. 881-883. As far as federal law, other than inthe context of interstate transportation, do you have a statute outlawing bigamy?

[guido911]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

 I'm still highly amused (bemused?) that there are people as interested in preventing gay marriage as the people interested in gay marriage.

Perhaps the best analysis on this issue in this thread.

[RecycleMichael]

They have been having gay marriages in Massachussetts for some time now and I honestly don't see how it has affected my life in any way.

[we vs us]

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

They have been having gay marriages in Massachussetts for some time now and I honestly don't see how it has affected my life in any way.

You can't see it, but we can.  

For one, you've become a much snappier dresser.

[RecycleMichael]

Thanks for noticing.

[guido911]

Anyone hear the Opie and Anthony attack on Olbermann's "special comment" on Prop 8? Brutal.

[azbadpuppy]

quote:Originally posted by guido911

Anyone hear the Opie and Anthony attack on Olbermann's "special comment" on Prop 8? Brutal.

Brutal how? Because they once again expose themselves as the juvenile, pointless, ignorant hacks they are?

Everyone's entitled to their own opinion, but seriously, those guys are the poster children for the dumbing down of America.

[guido911]

quote:Originally posted by azbadpuppy

quote:Originally posted by guido911

Anyone hear the Opie and Anthony attack on Olbermann's "special comment" on Prop 8? Brutal.

Brutal how? Because they once again expose themselves as the juvenile, pointless, ignorant hacks they are?

Everyone's entitled to their own opinion, but seriously, those guys are the poster children for the dumbing down of America.

So, no. You did not hear it.

[azbadpuppy]

quote:Originally posted by guido911

quote:Originally posted by azbadpuppy

quote:Originally posted by guido911

Anyone hear the Opie and Anthony attack on Olbermann's "special comment" on Prop 8? Brutal.

Brutal how? Because they once again expose themselves as the juvenile, pointless, ignorant hacks they are?

Everyone's entitled to their own opinion, but seriously, those guys are the poster children for the dumbing down of America.

So, no. You did not hear it.

Actually I listened to the whole thing. Pointless.

[guido911]

quote:Originally posted by azbadpuppy

quote:Originally posted by guido911

quote:Originally posted by azbadpuppy

quote:Originally posted by guido911

Anyone hear the Opie and Anthony attack on Olbermann's "special comment" on Prop 8? Brutal.

Brutal how? Because they once again expose themselves as the juvenile, pointless, ignorant hacks they are?

Everyone's entitled to their own opinion, but seriously, those guys are the poster children for the dumbing down of America.

So, no. You did not hear it.

Actually I listened to the whole thing. Pointless.

I agree, there was no real point other than how they just mercilessly ripped that drama queen Olbermann.

[Hoss]

quote:Originally posted by guido911

quote:Originally posted by azbadpuppy

quote:Originally posted by guido911

quote:Originally posted by azbadpuppy

quote:Originally posted by guido911

Anyone hear the Opie and Anthony attack on Olbermann's "special comment" on Prop 8? Brutal.

Brutal how? Because they once again expose themselves as the juvenile, pointless, ignorant hacks they are?

Everyone's entitled to their own opinion, but seriously, those guys are the poster children for the dumbing down of America.

So, no. You did not hear it.

Actually I listened to the whole thing. Pointless.

I agree, there was no real point other than how they just mercilessly ripped that drama queen Olbermann.

No more of a drama queen than that repubtard, O'Reilly and his stupid 'War on Christmas' crap.

[]

[Wilbur]

quote:Originally posted by tulsa1603

The thing that gets me:  Most people who oppose gay marriage oppose it for religious reasons.  Well, guess what, you CAN'T BAN a religious ceremony that marries a gay couple.  I can go tomorrow to the Unitarian Church on Peoria and get "married" to another man.  Banning it does NOT and cannot stop that.  ALl it does is deny us legal protections that straight couples have - family visitation in a hospital, property rights upon death of the partner, etc....  Allowing gay marriage is NOT going to turn people gay, it's NOT going to encourage people to be gay.  All it's going to do is allow those that are gay to avoid having to hire a lawyer to set up all the things we need.  I couldn't give a s*** less about the tax "benefits".  I just want to know that if I'm partnered for 30 years with someone, I'll be able to visit them in the hospital and their family not interfere.  Or that the house we bought together won't be inherited to them if he dies.  What's the big deal??

Visitation in a hospital is a hospital policy, is it not?  Hospitals can ban family members too, if they so wish.

And passing on property upon death will come down to a will.  Simply have the partner complete a will, that way the property goes to whom ever he/she wants.

A couple more points:

1.  There is nothing eloquent what so ever about Oberman.

2.  Judges only decide issues when a non-judge party sues, thus putting it in the hands of the court.  The only people who complain about judges are those who lost.