CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Some times it feels like gays are trying to force themselves into a club where they are clearly not wanted.
There are two parts to the gay marriage issue.
1. The love aspect
2. The benefits
The love aspect can be resolved in many different ways. They can:
1. Have their own ceremony with friends and relatives
2. Petition religions to change their stance on gay marriage
3. Start their own religion
The benefits aspect can be resolved simply by petitioning the government to stop using the word marriage and substitute in its place the word civil union and allow any couple (with age of consent) to join in a civil union.
In short, this issue shouldn't even be an issue because there are ways around the situation. If you don't want to go around the situation, then you're trying to force yourself in. If you are trying to force yourself in, then clearly, you are not wanted there.
Force themselves into a club where there not wanted?
How does any gay getting married effect any straight couple? Your argument, which you continue to repeat time and time again, is ridiculous, and you know it.
All gays want is equality, and if the government stopped using the word marriage but instead used civil unions that would be great. Look at this site that advocates equal marriage rights. It gives a number of scenarios:
We want the Flag of Equal Marriage to be complete, with all 50 stars lit up. We see three routes to marriage equality, as we define it:
1. Every individual state could pass a law allowing same-sex marriage.
2. The federal government could repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and allow same-sex marriage at the federal level, overriding all state-level bans.
3. The term "marriage" could be removed from state and/or federal laws, turning all "marriages" into civil unions in the eyes of the government. PLUS, same-sex civil unions would need to be recognized in all 50 states or at the federal level.
So here you're arguing a straw man "gays aren't being reasonable" argument.
Back to the whole "joining a club thing" and why it's bullshit. When African-Americans and other minorities "forced" their way into predominately white institutions, and clearly weren't wanted, should they have stopped?
In addition, marriage isn't a club. There aren't members only meetings where only married people are allowed to get into, and married people don't have to do anything for other married couples. Marriage is the legal (and often religious/cultural) union of two people who love each other and intend to spend the rest of their lives together. So allow me to repeat: how does letting gays marry affect, even a little bit, straight married couples? What gives them the right to deny those who want to pursue happiness with the one they love, legal sanction to do so?
If this is the best argument that you can come up with for opposing gay marriage, maybe you need to reevaluate your position and realize how ridiculous you sound (even more so than usual).
Don't let a person's "no" stand in your way. Don't recognize a person's right to tell you "no." If you stand there and argue with that person, then you have just recognized their right to tell you "no" and you are now trying to change their their mind to say "yes" so that they let you do whatever it is you want to do.
Basically what I'm saying is that the way gays have been going about fighting for their rights recognizes the opposition's right to say "no."
Now, I agree with and support this:
3. The term "marriage" could be removed from state and/or federal laws, turning all "marriages" into civil unions in the eyes of the government. PLUS, same-sex civil unions would need to be recognized in all 50 states or at the federal level.
I don't support number one because it means that the rights of the opponents of same sex marriages are being trampled on and they will therefore fight back. In other words, it legitimizes their right to oppose same sex marriage and gives them reason to fight back.
I would fight against number two because I'm for states rights. The federal government has way too much power.
Now, I did not say that gays are unreasonable for wanting same sex marriage. I am saying that if they are trying to follow scenarios one and two above, they are being unreasonable in the way they are pursuing it.
The argument that "it doesn't affect any straight couple" doesn't work because anyone could say, "And? So what? Who cares? The majority has voted. They don't want it!"
The whole "African-Americans and other minorities "forced" their way into predominately white institutions, and clearly weren't wanted" doesn't work because the word marriage has a religious aspect to it that needs to be separated from the legal aspect. If it can't be removed, then another word needs to take its place.
You ask, "What gives them the right to deny those who want to pursue happiness with the one they love, legal sanction to do so?" The answer is: Anyone who bothers to argue with someone who denies them the pursuit of happiness gives that person the right to do so. By arguing the point you are admitting/recognizing their right to oppose you. If your stance is that they have no right to oppose you, then you need not argue the point; you just figure a way to navigate the system or go around the system.
Now, lets see how ridiculous you sound when you say that gays have never been able to find an ounce of happiness because they don't have a piece of paper that says that they are legally married. What a bunch of crap. Do you actually expect me to believe that a piece of paper is going to magically make them find happiness? Come on.
Gays have been living together, spending the rest of their lives together, loving each other, expressing their love for each other in front of friends and family for ages. If you think that a piece of paper is going to somehow make things any different, think again. Those people who hate gays will always hate gays regardless of this piece of paper you so desperately want.
I don't support number one because it means that the rights of the opponents of same sex marriages are being trampled on - less so than any of the other civil rights battles that have ever been fought - when it comes to equal access to the ballot, the opponents could at least say their votes would be diluted by expanding the pool of voters - in this case the rights of the opponents will not be diminished in the slightest.
I would fight against number two because I'm for states rights do you believe each state should have the right not to recognize any marriage - for instance the states that had laws prohibiting interracial marriages?
the word marriage has a religious aspect to it
Actually, I would contend that this is a very widespread misconception. Marriage is actually just a social arrangement. Many religions have tenets related to marriage, but marriage can exist completely outside of religion. The government doesn’t (and shouldn’t) use any religions rules as the arbiter of what is acceptable in terms of marriage (we do not have laws requiring dowery, or that fathers of wife’s who could not prove their virginity pay the husband 50 sheckles, or that wives obey their husband as if he is god, etc.) We take our morals and our common sense and our constitution and some to a consensus on what should be legal – e.g. we allow divorce for more than just adultery because we found practical cases for divorce other than adultery (spousal abuse, etc.)
Anyone who bothers to argue with someone who denies them the pursuit of happiness gives that person the right to do so The right to be treated equally under the law is already being denied. Equality isn’t being denied because people are talking about it – it is certainly the opposite.
If you think that a piece of paper is going to somehow make things any different, think again Equality under law is more than just a piece of paper – social security benefits, health care, tax and court treatment, etc. – gays are taxed equally but receive less in government benefits than heterosexuals.
What are you talking about? Gays are not being discriminated against when it comes to marriage. Gays have exactly the same rights as straight couples. Gays just chose not to excersice their rights. Gays can marry anyone they want.... as long as it is someone of the oppposite sex ;)
What are you talking about? Heterosexuals have the same problems. I love Samantha Fox and I don't have the right to marry her. and have her receive my social security spousal benefits and all that other crap you go on about. ;)
you can run in logic circles all day if you want (consent was stipulated 4 posts ago) - i will just assume you have given up trying to make a good argument since you now know there isn't one.
too bad blacks and women were allowed in the club when they were not wanted in... maybe we should have come up with a new word instead of a democratic republic and just call it an 'EvenThosePeopleCanVoteOcracy'.
we can either change the entire US Code (including the more than 1100 federal benefits for married couples), and force each state to change all of their statutes (unconstitutional), or we can repeal DOMA and force each state to recognize the marriage of other states (constitutional and what we do with other marriages) making gay marriage legal in all 50 states all at once.
Oh please. The right to vote has nothing to do with marriage benefits.
You may be new here so I'll lay out my position for you.
1. I'm not against gay marriage.
2. I see the gay community's fight for gay marriage as an uphill battle.
3. I suggest that the gay community come up with a different name for their unions and force the government to give them the same benefits as heterosexual couples.
4. Alternatively, I suggest that the gay community force the government to give up the use of the word "marriage" and use a new word for both heterosexual, and homosexual marriages.
yeah , when i first came here to CD , i had you pictured as a gay-hate homophobe too. It took me a bit to realize that this oppinion of you is so very wrong. Now i understand where you are coming from with marriage rights for gays etc and now im behind you alll the way.
The right to vote has nothing to do with marriage benefits
I think it does in that a democracy can at times tend toward a tyranny of the majority over the minority – if women can’t vote, it takes a majority of people (or, as in the case of constitutional amendments 2/3 of both houses and 3/4 of all state legislatures) who must give them that right, and if a majority of law makers are not gay, it still takes a majority of those law makers to agree to make gay marriage legal.
I see the gay community's fight for gay marriage as an uphill battle I believe you are right. I think the battle to get civil unions is not only a compromise that will still end up maintaining at least some semantic distinction between gay couples and heterosexual couples who will still say married, etc. – I think it is actually more of an uphill battle rather than an easier one. As I tried to explain in my argument above, to institute civil unions nationwide, you would have to go through the entire US Code and replace all references to marriage, with civil unions. Additionally, you would likely still have to fight in every single state to get the laws changed to recognize those unions. Even treaties that deal with recognition of US marriages overseas would likely be affected, and who knows what else. Repealing DOMA would allow just one state to legalize gay marriage and all other states would recognize it like they do the marriages that take place in other states today.
The only reason not to use the word marriage is to appease bigots who somehow find the idea of two people loving each other unbearable if those two people happen to have the same naughty parts.
I think past compromises like don’t ask don’t tell intentionally left policy in an inherently unmaintainable state that is bound to be overturned in the future and therefore had a modicum of acceptability, but civil unions do not possess that attribute as prominently and would only be reconsidered if that semantic difference grew into something more.
I'm not against gay marriage me either - it should be legal...
I'll admit, I do not support gay marriage. This does not mean I hate gays or think homosexuality is a sin. Marriage I feel should be between a man and a woman. In the U.S., this decision I believe should be voted on in a State by State fashion. It should be up to the individual state to allow gay-marriage. If in my state we voted on it and is passed, so be it. If I can re-call Arizona, Florida, and California had a vote on Gay Marriage, and I believe all three votes came out to be against gay marriage. California, who would have thought? I think when it comes to gay marriage this has a major "Bradley Effect".
As for the rest of the world, its up to the rest of the countries to decide whether or not to accept it.
Here is why I disagree. In Arkansas, their was a law passed that banned people from adopting who were living with a sexual partner who they were not married to. This law had no other purpose then to stop homosexuals from adopting children. Right now Arkansas has more then three times more children that need adoption then there are available families to take them in, but guess what? Apparently taking away rights from homosexuals is more important. There is absolutely no proof that children who grow up in homosexual households suffer any sort of added mental problems. In fact, a court in Arkansas had unanimously agreed to overturn a ban on gay couples becoming foster parents because the reasons stated were, to be frank, bullshit.
The only way that we can fight homophobia is by showing people that homosexuals deserve the same rights as straight couples. I know you say yo don't hate gays, but why do you oppose gay marriage? Don't homosexuals deserve the right to have their love legally recognized? And don't say that there should be civil unions, that's the same thing telling African Americans they can drink from a water fountain, but not the same one as whites. Separate but equal can never be equal.
This law had no other purpose then to stop homosexuals from adopting children.
Are you telling me that you are clairvoyant? I thought you didn't believe in that crap.
Doesn't that law also prevent heterosexual couples who are living together from adopting? What? There are no heterosexual couples living together who want to adopt? What was that? If there were, they would just get married and adopt? Do you realize that there are obstacles, other than being gay, that handicap a couple to the point where they decide not to get married? Not because they don't want to get married but because of the obstacles.
I'm not a clairvoyant, but I can make basic inferences. Let's see if you can follow the chain of logic.
In 2006 a law banning homosexuals from adopting was overturned by the Arkansas supreme court unanimously. Then two years later the law was passed making it illegal for unmarried couples to adopt (and as you are aware from previous debates on the subject, homosexuals can't get married in Arkansas).
Obviously this will have an effect on more than just homosexuals, but the intent was clearly to circumvent the Supreme Court decision and keep homosexuals from adopting.
OK, so let me say back to you what I understood you say. A group of people (who hate gays) successfully figured out a way to either circumvent, or navigate thought, the system. Now, isn't that what I'm telling gays to do?
But more importantly, lets say that you are 100 % correct and that the law sacrificed unmarried heterosexuals in order to strike back at homosexuals. I think that you would agree that this would be a very spiteful and hateful thing to do. Now, are you telling me that you want to try and change those people's mind and remain living there. Let me ask you a question. Do you really think that just because a law is passed that people all of the sudden are going to change their mind and stop hating you? And you really want to keep living there? Knowing that you are hated and despised for forcing something down their throats? Something they didn't want? Let me see.... what is it that some white people do when "undesirables" move into their neighborhoods? Who benefits? Which is the best course of action to take?
No, you're telling gays to stop fighting for equal marriage rights, and making the assumption that gays aren't doing the other things you mention like fighting for domestic partnerships or civil unions in places where there is no recognition of homosexual couples. You also seem to imply that there are homosexuals who have put their relationships on hold until gay marriage is legal... which, is obviously ridiculous.
First: the vote was 57% for the ban on adoption, and 43% against, so in no way is it an overwhelming majority of the population that is against homosexuals adopting.
Second: I'm not saying necessarily that people despise homosexuals, only that they want to stop them from getting married. Most of these people probably wouldn't be outwardly hostile (though some might) but instead just avoid them. Most of these people clearly have been taught that homosexuality is wrong and that the right thing to do is to outlaw the marriage.
Third: Why should we cater to those who are being intolerant of people's lifestyles?
Fourth: Things like racism or prejudice against a group tend to be because someone has never met someone from that group. By forcing people who are against homosexuals to actually confront homosexuals, there is a good chance there opinions will change. At the very least, those children who might have grown up to be intolerant will be more used to the idea of gay couples.... especially if their friends have parents who are gay. Just look at the progress that has been made as far as racism since the 1960's. People were against the laws that ended things like segregation. In some southern states it was even the majority that opposed an end to segregation. Go down there now and see how many people would support segregation. Sometimes the laws need to come first, and then popular opinion will follow... especially on issues that deal with civil rights, because no one should have their rights stripped by popular vote.
I'm not telling gays to stop fighting for equal marriage rights. I'm telling them to take a different tactic. If you say that they are already doing that, then great.
Third: Why should we cater to those who are being intolerant of people's lifestyles?
Why should they carter to gays who are intolerant of their belief?
By forcing people who are against homosexuals to actually confront homosexuals, there is a good chance a fight will break out. You claim that it is wrong for people to forcing gays into a situation where they can't get married but you have no qualms about forcing people into accepting gays. WTF, soccer? If forcing people into something they don't want is wrong, then it's wrong. It isn't wrong for one group of people but OK for another. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
My point is that it is wrong to force anyone into anything they don't want to do; period. My solution is to go around those people. Not force them into doing it my way.
And again, WHAT RIGHTS? A piece of paper that says you're married? Benefits? If you want benefits, fight for benefits.
Sometimes the laws need to come first, and then popular opinion will follow... especially on issues that deal with civil rights
You can't legislate morality. That's the part that drives me up the wall. Someone telling me that something should or should not be legal because it is or isn't morally right. Sometimes the person talking to me about morals is an atheists or is pro-abortion. It drives me insane. Who are you to dictate your morals to me? You don't want me to dictate my morals to you. Why is it a one way street with you?
Just because "gays want to get married" does not make it a right, nor does it make it morally right (or wrong for that matter), nor do gays necessarily suffer if they don't get to marry.
The fact that "gays being allowed to marry doesn't hurt anyone" is not a logical argument for gay marriage because I can just as easily say, "It doesn't hurt anyone if gays don't get married."
There are savages living in the bush that don't know from marriage as we know it. They live together, do what comes naturally, and that's that. they don't have a piece of paper that says they are married.
If a gay couple do not have a piece of paper that says that they are married, how are they hurt? They are not hurt. They just don't get "extra" benefits. If I have a piece of candy and you want it and I don't give it to you, you are not hurt, you just don't have a piece of candy, you don't have something extra, you don't have something you didn't have to begin with. So how are you hurt?
Now, if I take something away from you, then you have a legitimate gripe. These marriage benefits are not taken away from gays. These marriage benefits are just not given to gay couples. If gays want those benefits then fight for those benefits. But don't give me some sob story about how gays are hurt because you aren't given something they want.
Oh, but they want the same thing as heterosexual couples. Hell, I want a million dollars. CEO's get a million dollars all the time. Am I hurt because I'm not given a million dollars? Am I right in asking for a million dollars? I never had a million dollars before. Do I have a right to a million dollars? Am I suffering? Does it hurt anyone if I were given a million dollars? Why can't I have my million dollars? Maybe I should just figure out how to get a million dollars on my own. WOW!!! What a freaking concept!!! I have control over getting a million dollars!!! And I'm willing to bet every penny of it that once I get it, it wont necessarily make me any happier than I am already, right now.
This crap about wanting to express their love in front of friends and family can be expressed without a legal piece of paper. If you want a legal piece of paper in order for it to mean something, go to a lawyer and have him draw something up. You want commitment? Then specify what it is you expect to get out of the union during and afterwords (in the event it doesn't pan out). Specify exactly what it is you are willing to give up during the relationship and afterwords (in the event it doesn't pan out). Then, if it doesn't pan out, come and tell me how happy that piece of paper made you feel.
'm not telling gays to stop fighting for equal marriage rights. I'm telling them to take a different tactic.
What you are saying is don't follow the legal process. I guarantee if they had listened to your advice from the start you would be complaining about how they weren't following the law (which you actually seem to be doing as well, ironically enough).
If forcing people into something they don't want is wrong, then it's wrong. It isn't wrong for one group of people but OK for another. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
By getting married gays aren't forcing anything on others. You could argue that allowing blacks to go to the same bathrooms and schools as whites was forcing racists to do something they didn't want.
And again, WHAT RIGHTS? A piece of paper that says you're married? Benefits? If you want benefits, fight for benefits.
Actually it's not me, but the supreme court that argued that marriage is a fundamental right. source Maybe you should check your sources before making claims that are demonstrably wrong.
So yes, homosexuals are fighting for rights. Not benefits, not to force their views on others... rights.
I guarantee if they had listened to your advice from the start you would be complaining about how they weren't following the law
Screw you Mr. clairvoyant. You don't know a thing about me.
You could argue that allowing blacks to go to the same bathrooms and schools as whites was forcing racists to do something they didn't want.
NO, I can't argue that. What I can argue is that what finally allowed blacks to use the same bathrooms and school as equals was educating the next generation. You can't legislate morality. Just because they made a law that allowed blacks to use the same bathroom and schools as whites did not create an atmosphere where blacks were all of a sudden, magically, accepted as equals. It took time and education.
Again, spell out for me these rights for me. You can't do it ;) can you ;)
Again, spell out for me these rights for me. You can't do it ;) can you ;)
Marriage. That's the right. I already showed you the unanimous supreme court decision that says marriage is a right. When you then show that homosexuality is not a choice (which has been done scientifically), then you see that a fundamental right is being denied to a group of citizens.
OK, I'll go on record. homosexuality is not a choice.
Having said that, I disagree with any court that claims marriage is a right anymore than driving a car is a right.
When I say something is "a right" I mean a God given right. For example, the right to pursue happiness. Gays are free to pursue happiness. Freedom is another right. Gays are free.
The U.S. cannot tell me who I can and cannot marry because I am the one who decides who to marry. The U.S. may not recognize my marriage but that doesn't impede on my decision (who to marry) nor does it impede my happiness. The only thing it impedes is any benefits I would be eligible for if the U.S. recognized my marriage.
A country has a right to decide what it will or will not recognize. The decision as to what it will or will not recognize is based on the majority. Anything else is just the tail waging the dog. A situation where the minority rules the majority and that is not right.
During the American Civil War, both sides had roughly the same number of people. Enough to sustain the war for 4 years. If one side had had more troops than the other, the war would have ended much quicker.
Eventually the side against slavery won. Eventually the North had enough people on its side to constitute a majority and end slavery. Slavery did not come to an end because it was immoral. Slavery came to an end because the majority did not want slavery.
Same thing with suffrage. Women did not get the right to vote because it was the right thing to do. Women got the right to vote because the majority of the people wanted it.
Currently, the majority of the people do not want gay marriage. If they did, gay marriage would be legal. I expect that to change in the near future. Any attempt to force the majority into some thing it clearly does not want is wrong.
The supreme court handed down their ruling. And yet, it is not the law of the land. Why? Because the majority does not want it. The supreme court's decision (without the sanction of the majority) is moot.
Now, you can go and fly in the face of reality and scream and shout, "But the supreme court said...." and you still wouldn't get any further than you are today. I, on the other hand, recognize reality for what it is and proposed an alternate solution around the problem. A solution that you said gay groups are pursuing.
So, you can dispute me all you want. It wont change a thing. Marriage will only become a right when the majority sees it that way. Until then, it is not a right. Regardless of what the supreme court says.
minorities become majorities in large part by persuasion - so people should definitely try to convince people with different beliefs. it doesn't give the other side any power it doesn't already have, etc. Making cogent arguments may not convince people who are entrenched in their opinion, but can garner those who are on the fence, or those that weigh the fundamental value behind your argument more than the value behind theirs (e.g. those that disagree with gay marriage, but think the government should not be the arbiter of which marriages are good ones), and people who don't know much about the issue at all.
you must think homosexuality is wrong to not want it to even be legal. even things like divorce that many people would disagree with is legal.
I think there must be some harm in order to make things illegal and i have seen no one present a cogent argument that shows the harm that gay marriage will do (except to the bigotries of religious people).
If you don't think so, then WHY!!!? Just cuz you don't like it is not sufficient.
Not only is marrige defined in the dictionary as a bond between a man and a woman; it is also defined that way in the bible. Now I'm not trying to be a holier-than-thou Jesus freak, but generally what the bible says goes. Just ask the founding fathers.
ever hear of a "marriage of ideas" marriage can be any union, even in the dictionary
moreover - should the dictionary dictate policy??
the founders said that congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion - what part of that means what the bible says goes.
not to mention what the bible actually says about marriage
the new testament specifically says it is better not to get married at all 1st Corinthians Chapter 7, and not to allow for divorce except for infidelity (and marrying someone who has been divorce makes you both adulterers).
California had a vote on Gay Marriage, and I believe all three votes came out to be against gay marriage. California, who would have thought? I think when it comes to gay marriage this has a major "Bradley Effect".
No, it wasn't the "Bradley Effect" it was the "Mormon Church Effect", which poured millions of dollars into mobilizing people to vote against it, and millions of dollars funding TV ads to oppose it. Follow the money and it leads back to Utah.
Should your state decide if YOU can marry who you want? Did the Supreme Court go too far when it overruled state's laws against interracial marriages in 1967?
What happens to the federal benefits/responsibilities of marriage (social security, tax implications and filings, exemption from testifying against spouses in court, child support, etc.)?
And if a gay couple adopts a child in a state where gay adoption is legal then moves to (or vacations in, drives through, etc.) a state where gay adoption is illegal, are there custody rights put in question?
Or, a lesbian couple who gets a civil union where it is legal, has a child by artificial insemination, and one spouse takes the kid to a state that does not recognize their union (based on a real case), what are the other spouse's rights?
Marriage is a good example of where a different law in each of the 50 states is a terrible idea.
And if a gay couple adopts a child in a state where gay adoption is legal then moves to (or vacations in, drives through, etc.) a state where gay adoption is illegal, are there custody rights put in question?
The full faith and credit clause, requires that all states must respect the laws and decisions of other states. This way you do not have to re-marry every-time you move to a different state. Yet despite this, some states refuse to acknowledge gay marriages from other states, thus violating the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution. There is a lack of consistency in this area.
If there is a conflict between the Constitution and a Federal law, it is the Constitution that presides over such cases where the conflict exists. In this case, where DOMA conflicts with the full faith and credit clause, it is the full faith and credit clause that reigns supreme.
In 1808, Justice Marshal in the Marbury v Madison case declared:
"So, if a law [e.g., a statute or treaty] be in opposition to the Constitution, if both the law and the Constitution apply to a particular case, so that the Court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the Constitution, or conformably to the Constitution, disregarding the law, the Court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty. If, then, the Courts are to regard the Constitution, and the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the Legislature, the Constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply."
"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"
Not only does it generally just mean that a state will recognize the acts of another state not enforce the other state's laws within its borders. It also says specifically that Congress can determine the effect thereof, as they have done with DOMA.
If my state says I can't buy alcohol on Sunday and I drive across the border does the other state have to not sell me alcohol?
Not only does it generally just mean that a state will recognize the acts of another state not enforce the other state's laws within its borders.
Nowhere have I said that it does any such thing, nor would it have to. A state cannot say that a marriage never took place, if it occurred legally within another state. They do not have to make Gay marriage legal, simply that they must recognize marriages which have legally already occurred in other states. This is all that the clause requires.
It also says specifically that Congress can determine the effect thereof
Not when the 'effect' amounts to overturning the clause itself, then it would not be an effect by definition.
If my state says I can't buy alcohol on Sunday and I drive across the border does the other state have to not sell me alcohol?
{sigh}
No. This is not how the clause works. The clause does not require that one state must adopt the laws of another. Say for example, that I bought fireworks legally in one state and brought them into another state where they are illegal to purchase. The new state cannot take them away from me or prosecute me for having purchased them.
The clause does not require that one state must adopt the laws of another.
That is exactly what I am saying.
Not when the 'effect' amounts to overturning the clause itself
You aren't making any sense - Congress determining the effect of a marriage law from one state on another is overturning the state law in this instance not overturning the FFC clause.
You began by saying that the reason custody rights would not be in question is because of the FFC clause, now you agree that a law in one state (e.g. marriage and it's corresponding custody rights/obligations) would not need to be enforced in another state - which is correct and what I have been saying. A state would just say yep we recognize you got married in another state, but that means nothing here.
from DOMA:
"No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship." - this is Congress' determination of the effect of marriage laws in one state on another. The FFC clause gives them the power to make this determination (though it likely violates the Equal Protection clause which is what it is actually being challenged on and Loving v Virginia was overturned on.)
You aren't making any sense - Congress determining the effect of a marriage law from one state on another is overturning the state law in this instance not overturning the FFC clause.
You began by saying that the reason custody rights would not be in question is because of the FFC clause, now you agree that a law in one state (e.g. marriage and it's corresponding custody rights/obligations) would not need to be enforced in another state - which is correct and what I have been saying.
Did you not notice that my first response to your post said "Supported" ?? Then you began to argue against something which I never said.
A state would just say yep we recognize you got married in another state, but that means nothing here. from DOMA:
of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship." - this is Congress' determination of the effect of marriage laws in one state on another. The FFC clause gives them the power to make this determination
No it doesn't. FFC basically says that one state must recognize the marriages of other states and DOMA basically says "states don't have to recognize gay marriages of other states". It contradicts FFC. DOMA is an exception, not an effect. It is entirely unconstitutional, on multiple grounds. It violates the FFC clause and it violates the tenth amendment, because the federal government is not delegated the power by the Constitution to determine the legality of marriages, this is reserved to the states, unless of course if you include the equal protection clause in which case it would still make DOMA unconstitutional.
I appeciate the support and must admit that I had been debating back and forth with hellno and initially thought your response was from him so I may have been harsher than I would have been otherwise. Sorry for that, but hopefully I can clear up the FFC thing with this post.
FFC basically says that one state must recognize the marriages of other states
this is where you are mistaken - the FFC says Congress can prescribe the effect of one state's laws on another state including saying that a law passed in one state has no effect on another state (DOMA).
The reason DOMA might be unconstitutional is not the FFC, it is the equal protection clause. Here is the CA ruling in the case on Prop 8 that Dubois and Olson are taking to the Supreme Court (the Plaintiff's case starts on page 5).
the FFC says Congress can prescribe the effect of one state's laws on another state
To say that we must disregard The Full Faith and Credit Clause in a particular instance, cannot be an effect of the Full Faith and Credit Clause.
No Effect =/= Effect
The only thing the caveat "to prescribe the effect thereof" does is it allows congress to determine HOW a law is recognized by another state not WHETHER it is recognized.
The equal protection clause is not the only part of the constitution DOMA violates.
Sometimes people get an idea stuck in their head and it becomes impossible to shake. It will likely take someone besides me to explain what you are interpreting incorrectly so if this post doesn't work I will leave it to someone else.
law passed by another state has no effect =/= FFC clause has no effect
Utah can "recognize" that 2 people did something that Massachusetts calls a marriage but Utah can say that act has no "effect" within its borders.
I gave you a case where 2 of the top attorneys in the country are challenging DOMA in the Supreme Court and they are not arguing that it violates the FFC clause. Can you find any case where any credible attorney is arguing otherwise?
Yes. Why Not? No one is asking a straight person to marry a gay person, so what's it to you world? You want to spout morals and religion when it suits you but it's not going to fly too much longer! Haven't you noticed that many states are going through the same things as California? It will come...maybe not today, but it will come.
I agree. Read this article attacking someone who wants people to rise up against the government to ban gay marriage, it's pretty funny and makes a good point.
The author is extremely funny and makes several very good points within his criticisms of Card. If I had a dollar for every man, woman or child who used the word "God" or "Religion" in their homophobic outlook on gay people, I'd be a rich woman. I'd be super-rich if I had another dollar for those who think their children are unsafe around gay people and most especially those who teach!
One day, we will see history made again when the first state actually ratifies a Constitutional vote in their state concerning this issue. Out of one will come many and I think I'll live to see it.
What do you mean that many states are going through the same thing as California? They voted it down... so the people in California did not support gay marriage.
Should we keep allowing people to vote and then the majority rules or just make the decision to allow it? Personally I would vote to allow it, but don't those that don't support it have a right to voice their thoughts at the polling place?
Your right, just like the people who voted to uphold slavery in certain states had that right, or the people who voted for segregation or any of the other civil rights injustices.
It was their right to vote, to take away the rights of others.
That is just the issue... some times people will vote for some thing that is really not ethical. (As in the example you gave of slavery, and in this case, gay rights and marriage). Do we just wait for the country to "come around" and get used to the idea of gay marriage? Will this issue polarize our country like slavery did and lead to another civil war? So who makes the decision to over ride the voters? Who they elected to run California will not overturn the vote, so should it go to the supreme court?
Well, in California, it did go to the Supreme Court, and guess what? They said gay marriage was legal! But then, Prop 8 was passed. The people campaigning for Prop 8 used fear to get people to vote for it. They scared people into thinking that their children would be affected by gay marriage.
The only way to ensure the right of homosexuals to marry would be to get an amendment passed. This would be virtually impossible though because there is still a lot of homophobia in the U.S. Also Church's, like the Mormon Church, encouraged their members to donate money and vote for Prop 8.
Honestly right now, religion is the biggest deterrent in this whole process. The only legitimate reasons against gay marriage are religious ones (i.e. sanctity of marriage) and of course this is a secular nation, so therefore they shouldn't sway people. Unfortunately they do.
To sum up, I have no idea. Fight homophobia would be my biggest suggestion. And maybe tax church's who take political stances on issues?
I have a solution, but your not gonna like it...get rid of religion. Right now the U.S. is suffering intellectually from religious fundamentalists controlling parts of the government and schools.
Obviously you can't prevent people from practicing religion (it's right there in the first amendment) but you could stop parents from indoctrinating their kids by saying it's mental abuse to threaten a child with eternal damnation.
Throughout the past several years there have been issues on the ballot in several states having to do with gay marriage. The State decides to allow it but the people must vote on the amendment, as is their right. The majority has spoken in California, for now. I say for now, because it will come up again just as it will in other states.
One of the problems with having the states voters cast a ballot is that many times, if not all the time, it is a two fold issue. The first involves saying yes or no to opening the state Constitution for an amendment. Once the Constitution is opened, people can then bog down the process by offering other amendments and changes to it. The second problem is will the amendment at hand ever get into the Constitution once it is opened. We just had that happen on another type of amendment here in Connecticut. I voted NO to opening the Constitution but Yes to the proposition. It looks as though the majority of people did the same thing as I because that's exactly how it stood after it was over. NO & YES! Now, how do you get a proposition in without opening the Constitution up to all manner of other issues? I cannot find the answer to this but I may be searching incorrectly. If anyone can come up with the answer please post it. Thanks.
I am sooooo tired if this fight. Not because I'm annoyed but because it makes me sad. And I have come to the resolve, that just as the slaves broke free of their chains, just as women fought tooth & nail so that they could step into a voting booth, and just as Rosa Parks decided she was going to sit in the front of that bus, the gays will have their marriage. It's inevitable. 65% of the people who voted NO on Prop 8 were people in their twenties. Guess what? In 15 years they are going to be the ones in charge, and their kids are going to be the new voters raised with a liberal black President. If Prop 8 doesn't get overturned now, it will.
Being gay is an abomination? The Bible Also says...
You cannot deny people equal civil rights while using their taxes to support the very government that is oppressing them.
Religions still have the option of blessing whatever unions they feel conform to their dogma.
What is so hard to understand about separation of church and state? Our elected representatives need to check their theology at the door and uphold the law.
There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that sais that gays aren't allowed to be married. Or that marriage is between a man or woman. If gays are banned from marriage then what is that saying about our Constitution? Is marriage for heterosexuals put up for vote or discussion?? I don't think so. All the religious talk of gay marriage not being right is really on the back burner if you think about what the Bible sais about divorice, but I still see that happening, right? No matter what religion or group you belong to, the fact is, we live in a country that thrives on diversity.
Antidisestablishmentarianism is the way that government should be run! Why do we impede on people's rights with laws that violate our own constitution? Gay rights!
The minimum length for an argument is 50 characters. The purpose of this restriction is to cut down on the amount of dumb jokes, so we can keep the quality of debate and discourse as high as possible.
The minimum length for an argument is 50 characters. The purpose of this restriction is to cut down on the amount of dumb jokes, so we can keep the quality of debate and discourse as high as possible.
I disagree with u guys on this because as stated in the Bible "it is an abomination for a man to lay with another man as he lays with a woman." Meaning it is defined in the Bible that same-sex relationships are wrong. This means that we should not be opening the door for homosexuals to marry.
