REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

States should regulate marriage?

POSTED BY: GEEZER
UPDATED: Monday, September 10, 2012 11:27
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 1440
PAGE 1 of 1

Saturday, September 8, 2012 1:53 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Vermont, New York, Connecticut support legal bid to strike down federal anti-gay marriage law
By Associated Press, Updated: Saturday, September 8, 4:47 AM

MONTPELIER, Vt. — The Vermont attorney general says the state has joined New York and Connecticut in asking a federal appeals court to rule the federal law that fails to recognize gay marriage as unconstitutional.

Attorney General William H. Sorrell said in a statement Friday that the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as a legal union between a man and a woman, has deprived same-sex couples of federal benefits and unfairly discriminates against them.

He said the three states filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case pending in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York.

The states argue that they, not the federal government, regulate marriage and family relationships and that Congress hasn’t the authority to refuse recognition of gay marriage and essentially “unmarry” couples.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/vermont-new-york-connecticut-su
pport-legal-bid-to-repeal-federal-anti-gay-marriage-law/2012/09/08/fa5f455e-f984-11e1-a0a1-b07778c66e04_story.html


While I agree with these folks that the DOMA should go, I wonder if having a patchwork of state laws ranging from no legal same-sex relationships to full recognition of same-sex marriage for all social and legal benefits is just gonna cause confusion.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, September 8, 2012 2:38 AM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
While I agree with these folks that the DOMA should go, I wonder if having a patchwork of state laws ranging from no legal same-sex relationships to full recognition of same-sex marriage for all social and legal benefits is just gonna cause confusion.



I don't think this is so much a question of gay marriage as state rights/ jurisdiction/ authority.

If we accept that states have the legal right to be sovereign on all matters outside of the Bill of Rights, then we simply have to get used to "confusion." We are used to it on many other laws, from murder to gun regulation to health care.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, September 8, 2012 7:17 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Yup. And I believe currently some states DO recognize same-sex marriage. Like pot being illegal, federally it is while some states have made it legal. If the feds want to argue the matter (which Obama stated a while ago they will not), then DOMA could be enforced, but right now it IS kinda de facto up to the states.

I don't like SOME very important things being left to the states. Hell, if they were, we'd still have legal discrimination--we still have it in some states, but at least they have a hard time doing it openly. I admit I believe MOST things should be left up to the states, but things as important as who can marry the person they love is an important civil right and should be recognized in the entire country. JMHO.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, September 9, 2012 1:53 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by Niki2:
I don't like SOME very important things being left to the states. Hell, if they were, we'd still have legal discrimination--we still have it in some states, but at least they have a hard time doing it openly.



Sort of my point.

Some states want to see DOMA overturned so they can allow same-sex couples the same rights as any other couples.

Some states want to see Roe v. Wade overturned so they can limit or eliminate access to abortions.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, September 9, 2012 8:38 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht


I was talking about this with a friend the other day, she said that historically marriage has always been regulated by individual states and not nationally. I like states' rights, so I'm leaning toward the DOMA not counting, even though I like what it says.

Back in the day one could marry a person in one state, and then move away to somewhere else and marry someone else and often not get caught.

I'm starting to think though that the government should be totally uninvolved with marriage rules. The only problem with that is that old guys would try to marry 12 year olds like in Pakistan and that's not acceptable, to all of us.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, September 9, 2012 11:40 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


States should regulate marriage?

No. There are too many federal tax and business consequences attached to the condition of marriage, leading to great federal inequalities when states have different regulations.

IN ADDITION there are already Federal Supreme Court rulings forbidding state discrimination against interracial marriages for example. Unless of course people really want to undo anti-discrimination rulings and perhaps even extend them, in which case maybe states SHOULD regulate marriage.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, September 10, 2012 8:43 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Quote:

There are too many federal tax and business consequences attached to the condition of marriage

Mmm, good point Kiki, I hadn't thought of that. For that and so many other reasons, I'm not sure what the solution IS. I don't like DOMA, obviously, but what kind of federal law can they make which will be inclusive, yet not ALL inclusive (in other words, keep people from marrying their dogs or something, for financial reasons?). It's a conundrum.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, September 10, 2012 8:49 AM

STORYMARK


Quote:

Originally posted by 1kiki:
Unless of course people really want to undo anti-discrimination rulings and perhaps even extend them, in which case maybe states SHOULD regulate marriage.



Im thinking it's a safe bet there are a few.


Note to anyone - Please pity the poor, poor wittle Rappyboy. He's feeling put upon lately, what with all those facts disagreeing with what he believes.

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, September 10, 2012 11:27 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by 1kiki:
States should regulate marriage?

No. There are too many federal tax and business consequences attached to the condition of marriage, leading to great federal inequalities when states have different regulations.

IN ADDITION there are already Federal Supreme Court rulings forbidding state discrimination against interracial marriages for example. Unless of course people really want to undo anti-discrimination rulings and perhaps even extend them, in which case maybe states SHOULD regulate marriage.




But then you end up with the same problem you're seeing with voting rights now - you'll have certain states trying to bring back miscegenation laws the way they're currently trying to bring back poll taxes.



"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Elections; 2024
Wed, November 6, 2024 00:31 - 4546 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Tue, November 5, 2024 23:43 - 4679 posts
With apologies to JSF: Favorite songs (3)
Tue, November 5, 2024 23:39 - 69 posts
Election fraud.
Tue, November 5, 2024 17:19 - 39 posts
Multiculturalism
Tue, November 5, 2024 17:16 - 53 posts
Funny Cartoon sparks Islamic Jihad !
Tue, November 5, 2024 17:12 - 248 posts
Elon Musk
Tue, November 5, 2024 16:57 - 32 posts
Electoral College, ReSteal 2024 Edition
Tue, November 5, 2024 16:55 - 40 posts
What kind of superpower could China be?
Tue, November 5, 2024 16:02 - 54 posts
End of the Democratic Party (not kidding)
Tue, November 5, 2024 14:18 - 56 posts
Disgruntled Tepublicans vow to move to Australia
Tue, November 5, 2024 13:53 - 76 posts
Kamala Harris for President
Tue, November 5, 2024 13:47 - 639 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL