The Texas Inquisition

[azbadpuppy]

Texas GOP now wants to reverse the ban on "Sodomy" laws, and is seeking to make gay marriage a felony offense (amongst other choice proposals).


http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0621/tx-gop-platform-jail-mexicans-criminalize-sodomy-gay-marriage-felony/

And these are the same people who scream for less government in our lives. Right.

Would they just secede already? The Southern Baptist Convention and the AG could take turns running the new country, Kenneth Copeland could be president, Obama could officially become the antichrist, and they could set up checkpoints at the borders- all those entering who are not "born again" must be stamped with the mark of the beast.

Well, at least it would make a great made-for-TV mini series.

[guido911]

Did someone wee wee in Azbad's Wheaties today?

[Ed W]

Here's something I don't understand.  If the Constitution's 'full faith and credit' provisions make my wedding license issued in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania a legally binding document here in Oklahoma, how is it that states can say that a same sex couple cannot be legally married when they cross into a state that prohibits such a union?  Sometimes a marriage license is called a marriage contract, and I have to wonder if that's the correct terminology, because if it is, then a good argument could be made that by denying such contracts the states are engaged in sexual discrimination.

Just a thought.

[guido911]

Here's something I don't understand.  If the Constitution's 'full faith and credit' provisions make my wedding license issued in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania a legally binding document here in Oklahoma, how is it that states can say that a same sex couple cannot be legally married when they cross into a state that prohibits such a union?  Sometimes a marriage license is called a marriage contract, and I have to wonder if that's the correct terminology, because if it is, then a good argument could be made that by denying such contracts the states are engaged in sexual discrimination.

Just a thought.

But who wee weed in Azbad's Wheaties?

Seriously, you raise a frequently asked question that I think I can provide the answer to. First, as a general matter, other state statutes are treated differently that other state judgments/order. More specifically, in U.S. v. Ramirez, 2004 WL 100525, * 1 (10th Cir. (Utah) 2004), the Tenth Circuit in dicta noted:

The Full Faith and Credit Clause provides that "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State." U.S. Const. art. IV, § 1. The Supreme Court has emphasized there is a difference between "the credit owed to laws (legislative measures and common law) and to judgments." Baker v. General Motors Corp., 522 U.S. 222, 232, 118 S.Ct. 657, 139 L.Ed.2d 580 (1998) (cited with approval in Franchise Tax Bd. of California v. Hyatt, 538 U.S. 488, 123 S.Ct. 1683, 1687, 155 L.Ed.2d 702 (2003)). The Full Faith and Credit Clause "is exacting" with respect to "[a] final judgment ... rendered by a court with adjudicatory authority over the subject matter and persons governed by the judgment." Id. at 233. On the other hand, the Full Faith and Credit Clause does not compel "a state to substitute the statutes of other states for its own statutes dealing with a subject matter concerning which it is competent to legislate." Sun Oil Co. v. Wortman, 486 U.S. 717, 722, 108 S.Ct. 2117, 100 L.Ed.2d 743 (1988)

[Internal citations and punctuation in original].  I hope this helps conceptually.

[azbadpuppy]

Here's something I don't understand.  If the Constitution's 'full faith and credit' provisions make my wedding license issued in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania a legally binding document here in Oklahoma, how is it that states can say that a same sex couple cannot be legally married when they cross into a state that prohibits such a union?  Sometimes a marriage license is called a marriage contract, and I have to wonder if that's the correct terminology, because if it is, then a good argument could be made that by denying such contracts the states are engaged in sexual discrimination.

Just a thought.

That's why the legality of state same-sex marriage bans (prop 8 ) are being challenged, and will ultimately be decided by the US supreme court.

Eventually, just as the civil rights laws in the 60's were, gay marriage will be legalized nationally by the feds because it is unconstitutional to deny certain Americans the same rights afforded to others.

Honestly the terminology should be changed. The 'contract' granted by the government should be called a civil union, and should be equally allowed (with all the benefits) to all consenting adults. The 'marriage' should be the ceremony, performed by a priest, or whatever, and should not have any bearing on the legalities of the government sanctioned union.

Currently the separation between church and state is blurred when it comes to marriage, when really 'marriage' should only be the religious or ceremonial aspect of a 'civil union'.  Regardless of what it's called, the term should be the same for everyone. Separate is never equal.

[azbadpuppy]

Did someone wee wee in Azbad's Wheaties today?

You should see me when I'm really cranky 

[Conan71]

I didn't realize Sally Kearn is also a member of the Texas legislature

[Hoss]

I didn't realize Sally Kearn is also a member of the Texas legislature

Different spelling (Kern) I think....

....oh, you're being facetious...ah!

You get your phone working, BTW?

[Red Arrow]

Honestly the terminology should be changed. The 'contract' granted by the government should be called a civil union, and should be equally allowed (with all the benefits) to all consenting adults. The 'marriage' should be the ceremony, performed by a priest, or whatever, and should not have any bearing on the legalities of the government sanctioned union.

Currently the separation between church and state is blurred when it comes to marriage, when really 'marriage' should only be the religious or ceremonial aspect of a 'civil union'.  Regardless of what it's called, the term should be the same for everyone. Separate is never equal.

I believe the gay community is causing resistance to their cause by insisting on using the word "marriage".   It's just semantics but we all know that some words ignite fire in some peoples' minds.

Surprise.... I think gay people should have access to the legal aspects such as survivor benefits, the right to half the other persons' stuff in the case of a divorce, etc.  Much of it could be done by a bunch of legal finagling but I believe Social Security and retirement benefits would be excluded.  One all inclusive contract should not be out of line.  However, thousands of years of tradition of "Western" culture does make it difficult for me to accept the word "marriage".   I would probably support it in a vote though even if just to tick off the religious wackos that have hijacked conservatism.

[nathanm]

even if just to tick off the religious wackos that have hijacked conservatism.

+1

I may seem like a flaming liberal sometimes, but I'm sympathetic to a broad swath of the traditional conservative ideology. The Eisenhower Republicans, if you will. The current crop is generally either so focused on keeping Reagan's religious bloc in the fold or such complete stooges for corporations even when they are pissing on conservative principles (like environmental preservation, which is historically a conservative ideal) that I can't support them in the least.

Even supporting the few who do hold to those principles just lends legitimacy and support to the crazy wing of the Republican party. I think it's sad, as I'd like more of a choice at the ballot box.

[Red Arrow]

I may seem like a flaming liberal sometimes,

may?
sometimes?


Sorry, you left yourself open on that one.
I've been got for some of my stuff too.

[nathanm]

may?
sometimes?


Sorry, you left yourself open on that one.
I've been got for some of my stuff too.

Ok, Ok, usually. It's only because the discourse in this country has shifted so far right in the last 30 years, though.

[Hoss]

Ok, Ok, usually. It's only because the discourse in this country has shifted so far right in the last 30 years, though.

No kidding.  When people I know at work cite Glenn Beck as a sane source of information, I feel the need to slap that person.  I resist though...   

[azbadpuppy]

No kidding.  When people I know at work cite Glenn Beck as a sane source of information, I feel the need to slap that person.  I resist though...   

Resistance is futile....slap away.

[azbadpuppy]

I believe the gay community is causing resistance to their cause by insisting on using the word "marriage".   It's just semantics but we all know that some words ignite fire in some peoples' minds.

I agree with you on this one. 'Marriage' should be kept as a religious/traditional ceremony, performed as you wish. What everyone should be granted by the government in the form of certain rights and benefits should be called a civil union.