Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Piffer Thread on Political Rantings and Ravings -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jorj X Mckie who wrote (12809)	2/26/2004 10:31:25 PM
From: MulhollandDrive	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 14610

it doesn't, jorj.. i think m is referring to the doma (defense of marriage) laws that are now on the books in something like 38 states.. that's why the amendment is under consideration... and i think the push now is to send a message across the bow of the judiciary , the concern being if massachusetts' gay marriage law is upheld as constitutional, and the doma laws are unconstitutional the only recourse is a constitutionl amendment defining marriage cbsnews.com 8. What about the federal Defense of Marriage act? What about it? Don't better the "over" on its longevity. Clearly, the White House and supporters of a marriage amendment aren't confident that the federal law, signed by President Clinton, will withstand judicial scrutiny if and when that scrutiny comes. The Defense of Marriage Act defines marriage as a legal union between one man as one woman under federal law. It also permits the states to refuse to recognize each other's marriage laws (a provision that may violate the Constitution's "full faith and credit" clause) but it doesn't stop any individual state from recognizing gay marriage, which is what Massachusetts did and what California is contemplating. The federal statute is susceptible to judicial review -- and based upon the Supreme Court's sodomy ruling last June that review might not be kind. The amendment, as I mentioned above, would generally be free from such review.

To: Jorj X Mckie who wrote (12809)	2/26/2004 11:36:36 PM
From: Alan Smithee	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 14610

MPH didn't say anything about the Constitution defining marriage. Of course it doesn't, you dunce. What she said (or implied) is, if a court (or courts) conclude that statutes defining marriage as being between one (1) man and one (1) woman are violative of the U.S. Constitution, and if the Supreme Court upholds that view (I doubt the current court would, and if Bush gets another appointment if clearly won't), then the only way around it would be a constitutional amendment that addresses the issue. Con. law is a long way off for me, but my take on it is this - the authority to grant a marriage license, and to approve of a marriage legally, is a function of the states, not the federal government. If the socialist state of Minnesota decides to allow marriages between people of the same sex, then that is the end of the issue (at least in Minnesota), unless there is a federal constitutional amendment on the issue. Does Utah have to recognize the rights of a same-sex couple legally married in Minnesota but who move to Utah? This raises issues under the full faith and credit clause of the U.S. Constitution: Art. IV, Section 1. 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. There are also issues of equal protection: Art. XIV, Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. I recall there is a requirement under equal protection analysis that you have similarly situated groups. Are same-sex couples similarly situated as hetero couples? I'd think there are arguments on both sides. All in all, it's an interesting debate, and its bound to get more interesing. Now, who wants to talk about Gibson's "The Passion?" Anyone seen it yet?

To: Jorj X Mckie who wrote (12809)	2/27/2004 12:41:19 PM
From: Original Mad Dog	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 14610

but I don't remember the part where the constitution defines marriage as between a man and a woman. Jorj, it's right there in the Preamble ... I really don't see how they could have made it any clearer: The Constitution of the United States of America We the men and women of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union of men and women, establish justice for men and women together, insure domestic tranquility between men and women, provide for the common defense of unions of men and women, promote the general welfare of men and women, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. Oh, and by the way, marriage can only be between a man and a woman, and most of the stuff that's in here doesn't apply to men who like men and women who like women, in case you were wondering. law.cornell.edu