PDA

View Full Version : Should marriage be a state or federal issue?


AYFR
10-17-2007, 06:39 PM
Quote:However, many aspects of marriage law affecting the day to day lives of inhabitants of the United States are determined by the states, not the federal government, and the Defense of Marriage Act does not prevent individual states from defining marriage as they see fit; indeed, most legal scholars believe that the federal government cannot impose a definition of marriage onto the laws of the various states by statute. Massachusetts has recognized same-sex marriage since 2004. Connecticut, Vermont, New Jersey, California, and New Hampshire (from 1 January 2008) have created legal unions that, while not called marriages, are explicitly defined as offering all the rights and responsibilities of marriage under state law to same-sex couples. Maine, Hawaii, the District of Columbia, Oregon (from 1 January 2008) and Washington have created legal unions for same-sex couples that offer varying subsets of the rights and responsibilities of marriage under the laws of those jurisdictions.

In contrast, twenty-six states have constitutional amendments explicitly barring the recognition of same-sex marriage, confining civil marriage to a legal union between a man and a woman. Forty-three states have statutes restricting marriage to two persons of the opposite sex, including some of those that have created legal recognition for same-sex unions under a name other than "marriage." A small number of states ban any legal recognition of same-sex unions that would be equivalent to civil marriage.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-se..._United_States

And this
The Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, is the commonly-used name of a federal law of the United States that is officially known as Pub. L. No. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419 (Sept. 21, 1996) and codified at 1 U.S.C. § 7 and 28 U.S.C. § 1738C. The law has two effects.

*No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) need recognize a marriage between persons of the same sex, even if the marriage was concluded or recognized in another state.

*The Federal Government may not recognize same-sex or polygamous marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states.

The bill was passed by Congress by a vote of 85-14 in the Senate[1] and a vote of 342-67 in the House of Representatives[2], and was signed by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996.

At the time of passage, it was expected that at least one state would soon legalize same-sex marriage, whether by legislation or judicial interpretation of either the state or federal constitution. Opponents of such recognition feared (and many proponents hoped) that the other states would then be required to recognize such marriages under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution.

Including the results of the 2006 midterm elections, one state (Massachusetts) allows same-sex marriage, five states recognize some alternative form of same-sex union, twelve states ban any recognition of any form of same-sex unions including civil union, twenty-six states have adopted amendments to their state constitution prohibiting same sex marriage, and another twenty states have enacted statutory DOMAs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act

Funny that was passed under Bill Clinton and not Bush

More here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense...iage_amendment

What happen when it is a Federal issue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Marriage_Amendment

Saguaro
10-17-2007, 06:46 PM
Well Rev. it's kinda hard answering yes or no to a poll that asks an either or question.

Kurtz
10-17-2007, 07:10 PM
And here's the documentation:
Poll Options
Should marriage be a state or federal issue
Yes
No

:lmao

Man, I needed this laugh, for real!!!!


Thanks Rev, I love you! :heart

Kurtz
10-17-2007, 07:11 PM
I mean it!! :lmao

Lone Laugher
10-17-2007, 07:33 PM
How about......neither! You want to get married? Draw up the contract and sign on the dotted line. Nice and simple.

Kurtz
10-17-2007, 07:52 PM
How about......neither! You want to get married? Draw up the contract and sign on the dotted line. Nice and simple.


And get equal rights 'n liberties as offered by the government.
Now that would not only be nice, that would be, well, equal, huh?

Saguaro
10-17-2007, 07:55 PM
Equal,a novel idea !

patriotsblade
10-17-2007, 07:56 PM
I see Reverend hasn't returned since posting this retarded thing.

:rofl :lmao

Kurtz
10-17-2007, 08:20 PM
I see Reverend hasn't returned since posting this retarded thing.

:rofl :lmao

Even my retarded brother knows
folks should have equal rights. :lol

Wait, am I spozed to say mentally handicapped?
Or is it mentally challenged? Shit, I can't remember. :confused

Course, he's pretty educated too,
knows about slavery 'n the Civil War.

AYFR
10-17-2007, 08:44 PM
Ok can a moderator or admin "Q" fix my poll and no the idea of this thread is not retarded. It shoud be state or federal instead of yes or no.

Also PB some of us have actual lives outside the internet.

I posted a link as to what kind of bill that Congress would pass if given the chance, but Patriotblade probably didn't even read it so here it is.




The Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA) (also known as the Marriage Protection Amendment) is a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution which would define marriage in the United States as a union of one man and one woman. The FMA also would prevent judicial extension of marriage rights to same-sex or other unmarried couples, as well as preventing people from having multiple spouses. The most recent vote to take place on the proposed Amendment occurred in the United States House of Representatives on July 18, 2006 when the Amendment failed 236 yea to 187 nay votes, falling short of the 290 yea votes required for passage. The Senate has only voted on cloture motions with regards to the proposed Amendment, the last of which was on June 7, 2006 when the motion failed 49 yea to 48 nay votes, falling short of the 60 yea votes required to proceed to consideration of the Amendment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Marriage_Amendment

Kurtz
10-17-2007, 08:50 PM
otherwise known as a HATE Bill :lmao

Semantics
10-17-2007, 08:51 PM
All fixed. :)

It's a good question, Rev.

Saguaro
10-17-2007, 08:56 PM
The problem that I have with just states is that, I was married in Illinois,any state I moved to could say since I don't have that state's marriage license then I am not married (just another way to get more money)

AYFR
10-17-2007, 08:57 PM
otherwise known as a HATE Bill :lmao

Which is why the states should choose.

Kurtz
10-17-2007, 09:00 PM
Which is why the states should choose.


Hate knows no boundaries, Son. :hug

AYFR
10-17-2007, 09:02 PM
Yes but this way it would be confined to a smaller area

Kurtz
10-17-2007, 09:10 PM
Yes but this way it would be confined to a smaller area


Oh, never will be, no matter how small the mind.
Small minds often have big mouths. :)

AYFR
10-17-2007, 09:13 PM
Still should be a state issue and the references I posted agree with me

Kurtz
10-17-2007, 09:17 PM
Still should be a state issue and the references I posted agree with me

Good, I hope that makes you feel better. :hug

It's still wrong to deny folks equal rights/liberties in America.

AYFR
10-17-2007, 09:20 PM
Good, I hope that makes you feel better. :hug

It's still wrong to deny folks equal rights/liberties in America.

Not arguing that point. Again if someone wants to marry the samme-sex I really don't care, BUT if you ARE going to make laws on it THAT should be a state issue.

Saguaro
10-17-2007, 09:23 PM
Still should be a state issue and the references I posted agree with me


Would you post a reference that disagreed with you ?

AYFR
10-17-2007, 09:57 PM
Sure I would I even looked for some.

I am not wabash, yellowdogtexan or ringo, I will try and provide all sides to a story.

You have a reference let me know.

Ringo
10-18-2007, 08:19 AM
Hate knows no boundaries, Son. :hug

Nope I see it on this Board daily, from so-called compassionate Liberals! I also see a Nation of real wussies, as Liberals are afraid of the even the smallest things! Gays are NOT special, Blacks are not special, neither are mexicans, orientals, arabs, euros, American Anglos, or even Indians! We were put here to be equal in the Lords eyes, he wanted Procreation, so he figured rather than animal lust, TWO people, MAN & WOMAN would unite to populate the Earth!

Here in America, up until the 60's when Commies started appearing and undermining families, church's and finally the Lord himself, the Nation was good, families were strong etc...Sure, there was a lot a work to do, but I doubt unless the Second coming happens soon, we can recover from the Progressive LYING assholes called Liberal Democrats!!!:mw:mw:godzilla

issac the dragon
10-18-2007, 09:08 AM
If I was to go along with you on this Ringo, I'd have to say its been done. Enough already. We don't need any more masses of people. So lets start favoring people who don't have kids.

The laws of this country should apply equally to everyone. Why do the Republicans keep trying to amend the Constitution to take away people's rights? That is contrary to everything in the Constitution. And typical Republican thought.

Izdaari
10-18-2007, 09:33 AM
Of the two choices offered, I'll take state, but I like neither. It does leave some legal details to be worked out, but oh, the advantages!