Welcome to the 13th century, NC!

[Steve]

This is a serious topic to me. It has nothing to do with Steve being allowed to marry Bill or janet allowed to marry sally.

I'm already married, Ballen.

It about states rights to run its state how it sees fit. It about we as a people rolling over and saying"Oh mighty fed govt were too stupid to make our own laws please save us from ourselves." Sometimes we make bad decisions but its less often then how many bad decisions our Govt has made in the name or Our own good.

Sometimes, people are too stupid to make their own laws. That is a demonstrable fact. Sometimes, the government overreaches its authority. That is also a demonstrable fact.

But in either case, where the process has failed, we must have the courage to stand up for what is right.

 

[ballen0351]

But in either case, where the process has failed, we must have the courage to stand up for what is right.

Whos standard of right do we use?

 

[Steve]

Whos standard of right do we use?

Bob has shared the one provided for whthin the constitution. How about we start there?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Bob Hubbard]

This is a serious topic to me. It has nothing to do with Steve being allowed to marry Bill or janet allowed to marry sally.

It about states rights to run its state how it sees fit. It about we as a people rolling over and saying"Oh mighty fed govt were too stupid to make our own laws please save us from ourselves." Sometimes we make bad decisions but its less often then how many bad decisions our Govt has made in the name or Our own good.

The States do have that right.

Article 1 - Section 10 - Powers prohibited of States

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.


Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

They also agreed to honor each others public records.

Article 4 - Section 1 - Each State to Honor all others

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.

That includes marriage registrations.

The Marriage License Laws for a man and a woman to marry vary from state to state. Although there are differences between the requirements in the various states, a marriage between a man and a woman performed in one state must be recognized by every other state under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution.

http://usmarriagelaws.com/search/united_states/index.shtml

So logically, if a m-f marriage must be recognized by the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution,
then a MM or FF marriage must also.

Which means, NC is contractually obligated to honor NY's gay marriages.


Unless NC would like to try seceding again.

The fact that this simple logic escapes so many people, simply amazes me.

Which this shows:

[h=2]Application to family law[/h] The Full Faith and Credit Clause has been applied to orders of protection, for which the clause was invoked by the Violence Against Women Act, and child support, for which the enforcement of the clause was spelled out in the Federal Full Faith and Credit for Child Support Orders Act (28 U.S.C. § 1738B).
Until the Supreme Court struck down all laws banning interracial marriage in 1967, a number of states banned interracial marriage and did not accept interracial marriage licenses issued in other states. The full faith and credit clause was never used to force a state to recognize a marriage it did not wish to recognize.[SUP][17][/SUP]
The clause's application to state-sanctioned same-sex marriages, civil unions, and domestic partnerships is unresolved, as is its relationship to the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment. Between 1996 and 2004, 39 states passed laws and constitutional amendments that define marriage as consisting solely of different-sex couples. Most explicitly prohibit the state from honoring same-sex marriages performed in other states and countries. Conversely, same-sex marriage is legal in several states and the District of Columbia. In August 2007, a federal appeals court held that the clause did require Oklahoma to issue a revised birth certificate showing both adoptive parents of a child born in Oklahoma who had been adopted by a same-sex couple married in another state.[SUP][18][/SUP] Another federal appeals court held differently in April 2011 in a Louisiana case, Adar v. Smith.[SUP][19][/SUP]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_Faith_and_Credit_Clause

 

[ballen0351]

. I dont see how NC can not accept marriage licenses from other states. That part of the NC law i believe is illegal except there is already a federal law that says no state can be forced to honor another states gay marriage license. That needs to be over turned but until then NC is with in its right to not honor the licenses.

But i also think NC can deny gay marriage licenses in its state if it wishes but if im gay and get married in Md and then move to NC they shoukd be required to honor the license.

 

[granfire]

. I dont see how NC can not accept marriage licenses from other states. That part of the NC law i believe is illegal except there is already a federal law that says no state can be forced to honor another states gay marriage license. That needs to be over turned but until then NC is with in its right to not honor the licenses.

But i also think NC can deny gay marriage licenses in its state if it wishes but if im gay and get married in Md and then move to NC they shoukd be required to honor the license.

pretty much the whole point of this thing.

And once they have to honor another state's license, why not allow it their own....what is going to happen when gays go to NY to get married...they go back home and are no better off than the stranger on the street? Flies in the face of the Vegas wedding!

 

[ballen0351]

Maryland court of appeals legalized same sex divorce here today. Supporters for same sex marriage call it a step in the right direction?

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Maryland court of appeals legalized same sex divorce here today. Supporters for same sex marriage call it a step in the right direction?

Yep. Can't have 1 without the other.

 

[ballen0351]

Yep. Can't have 1 without the other.

Yeah it was just funny how they reported it. "Gay marriage supporters call the decision to allow same sex divorce a step in right direction"

 

[Master Dan]

Bob just currious but in reference to the electorate/voters being stupid? I was told long ago that Jefferson's opinion of one man one vote was in his mind only one type of person educated enough to make good judgments on behalf of the country. That seems to have stretched into the nether worlds of many faction including uniformed voters voting for alot of different reasons.

Point in fact here in Alaska Sara Palin????? I wanted the previousl governor a very good man Democrat able to run again and I asked the girls at the bank who they were voting for and they shook thier little heads back and for and said Oh Sara she is so cute??? Gee what a good reason for electing someone but in American today politics and voting don't seem to be doing much better?? The country is in such dire straits and congress and senate is such a mess nothing is getting done that needs to be done. Some times I have to turn the news off its horrible and wonder if there is much hope for it getting better for a two party system. Clinton went on the other night and listed all the things that would not have been passed including the constitution if the two parties could not work together since Boner said that nothing will improve untill one party destroys the other. I know its Bayner but I call him Boner

 

[Bob Hubbard]

People vote based on a lot of things, most have nothing to do with positions or informed decisions unfortunately.

 

[elder999]

All manner of arguments here are moot, really.

First off, though:

Unless you believe, as many do, that every jot and title of the bible is either the inspired or direct word of God, merely written by faithful men.

Under that worldview, all the laws in the old testament are the word of god, and the new testament as well. Therefore the biblical condemnations against homosexuality are a divine mandate, and not up for debate.

So Chrisitians should be stoning witches, not eating cheeseburgers and not wearing polyester/cotton blends.....:lfao:

Almost all of the arguments presented here, especially those that insist they are in favor of "civil unions," are moot.

As I've posted before, all state-sanctioned marriages are "civil unions," a contractual conjoining of property and custodial rights. Make that the solution-start calling the state sanctioned conjoining of property and custodial rights a "civil union," and leave marriage to the religious and other institutitions as the couple sees fit.....

In any case, someone like Billi might meet Jenna Tacklova, a competitor in the Miss Canada pageant, and think her to be quite the catch, have lights out fulfilling sexual relations with her, be enchanted by her wit, poise and beauty, and take her home to meet mom and dad/ Never mind that "she" "used to be" a "he," she no doubt possesses what is, by all accounts anyway, a fully sexually fulfilling orifice resembling a vagina-if not a functional vagina," and she is also quite stunning looking, by any objective apparaisal. More to the point, she has a birth certificate that says she was born female, and could-and probably will marry a man at some point-legally. She might not even tell him that she used to be a man.....

Even though she was born a "man."

Even though she really isn't a "woman," at least, not in the physical sense.

In a world where 52% of heterosexual marriages end in divorce, where people set their own children on fire, or drown them, and where so many are condemned to live a life alone, keeping people who choose to legally commit to each other from doing so-to what end, I still don't understand-is not only cruel, unnecessary and vindictive, but downright pointless-especially in a world where a "man" can become a "woman" with a few surgeries and hormones, and a "woman" can do likewise, with a few more surgeries, and hormones.....

 

[elder999]

And, as predicted:

Appeals Court Turns Back Marriage Act as Unfair to Gays[h=6]By KATHARINE Q. SEELYE and ETHAN BRONNER[/h][h=6]Published: May 31, 2012 [/h]
A federal appeals court ruled unanimously Thursday that the federal law declaring marriage to be a union solely between a man and a woman discriminates against married same-sex couples by denying them the same benefits afforded to heterosexual couples — a ruling that could set the stage for the Supreme Court to review the issue as early as next year

 

[WC_lun]

I have to wonder how the supreme court will rule. The 5 conservatives are put in a spot. On one hand they have personal rights, which seem to be a pet issue of conservatives. On the other hand, to come down on the side of personal rights will go against social conservatism. Guess we'll find out what is more important to those justices.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

My feeling is that they will focus on rights base, and expand on the previous ruling that allowed racial intermarriage.

 

[Ken Morgan]

Not all Conservatives are social conservatives. They are usually the loudest part of the movement, but they themselves do not define the movement.

 

[Blade96]

NC reminds me of this.

 

[Blade96]

and?

You're kind of evil Ballen.

Steve, Bob, you're beating a dead horse me thinks. If the people voted for a law saying everyone should be allowed to torture kittens like luka magnotta, this shmoo here called ballen would probably say Meh.....its what they wanted and its law now so.....

 

[Steve]

You're kind of evil Ballen.

Steve, Bob, you're beating a dead horse me thinks. If the people voted for a law saying everyone should be allowed to torture kittens like luka magnotta, this shmoo here called ballen would probably say Meh.....its what they wanted and its law now so.....

Beating a dead horse? I haven't posted on this thread in almost three weeks! in D&D terms, ballen is playing what we would call a lawful stupid paladin. (not calling ballen stupid, cause I know hes not.) It's a reference to people who think being lawful means meekly and thoughtlessky obeying laws in the game.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

 

[Bob Hubbard]

I'm chaotic neutral. Or Sith. Whichever one gets me free crab legs at the buffet.