Like it or not, all 50 States must now recognize Gay Marriages!

How can this be? Let me start with this:

At the stroke of midnight, as the date ticked over to Sept. 1st, Vermont's new same-sex marriage law took effect. Some couples took advantage of that timing, with a few getting married right after the stroke of midnight.

Vermont is one of five states that now allow same-sex couples to marry. Massachusetts, Connecticut and Iowa are the others. New Hampshire's law takes effect on Jan. 1st, 2010.

However, Vermont is the first state to legalize gay marriage through legislation, rather than a judicial ruling. In 2000, Vermont was also the first state to allow civil unions as an alternative to marriage. On April 7, when the state House and state Senate voted 100-49 and 23-5, respectively, to override a veto by the governor.

Source.

Notice the part in bold type? So why would the other States be forced to recognize Gay Marriages (as opposed to civil unions) performed in these States? The U.S. Constitution; Article IV, 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.

So while they may prohibit Gay couples from getting married in their State, they have absolutely no choice in regards to recognizing the Marriages performed in other States. This also renders the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional. It's only a matter of time now before this is brought before the Supreme Court.

When gays can get married everywhere that will be a happy day, I'm all for equal rights. As far as I'm concerned we're not equal toward the homo-sexual race (cleary) and I'm a hetero-sexual male.

Finally.

At least some common sense is being brought into this debate. I hope it does go to the supreme court and I hope the attorney general of Vermont and other states who have legalized it stand up for the rights of homosexuals.

It's ludicrous in this day and age that same sex marriages are not permited and are not recognized.

This we will have to follow closely.

~Keeper

Every civilization that has embraced homosexuality has been destroyed. I fear that we are next. We may decide right or wrong based on our flawed human wisdom, but there is a higher moral standard laid down by the hand of God. I sure wouldn't want to flaunt my disregard of that standard.

reply to post by SevenThunders


That is your personal belief my friend. And although I respect it. I highly doubt that God destroys societies because they embrace acceptance and individuality.

As far as I am concerned God hates sin, not the sinner. We are all sinners, and judgment is in his hands not humans.

~Keeper

Every civilizations that has embraced homosexuality has been destroyed? I had no idea England no longer existed...

If the Christian radicals, who run this country by complaining, stopped caring whether two girls get married or what people do in their own house we might be able to actually get to some issues.

WHO CARES IF TWO GIRLS OR TWO BOYS WANT TO GET MARRIED!?!?

Is this why our economy went to $#!7? Because our leaders cared about this trivial crap instead!!

reply to post by SevenThunders


I would really hope god has better things to do than worry what two adults do in the bedroom..The problem is religion we should be banning that in every way shape and form if you use it to take rights away from people, and i am a hetro male happily married..

Originally posted by SevenThunders
Every civilization that has embraced homosexuality has been destroyed.

The sky also goes dark each day too.

2nd

reply to post by SevenThunders


Every civilization that has not embraced homosexuality has been destroyed. So what's your point?

While I may agree that every other state should be required by the constitution to recognize Vermonts same sex marraige, in practice the full faith and credit clause is selectively enforced if at all these days.
The prime example is the issue of Concealed Weapons Permits where states do not recognize permits from other states and the issuance of these permits are public acts also.

Alright by the power invested in me by me, all gays in all 50 states now have the power to not be able to kick your mate out of your house. You also now have the power to pay palimony to your former mate for life. You also have the power to pay obscene attorneys fees and court costs when litigating said palimony. You also now have the power to become obligated to the Internal Revenue Service and other debt collection agencies on your mate’s behalf. You also now have the power to end up going nowhere for vacation because you and your mate can not decide on the seashore or the mountains.

I knew BDSM was bigger in the gay community than in the heterosexual one but if you ask me this is insanely masochistic.

Careful what you wish for you just might get it!

What a big defeat for civil rights! The more marriages that states dictate over, the less free of a country we are. What Vermont is doing is butting its nose into people's personal relationships. Why gay people would want such a thing is a mystery.

Gay marriage is just fine with me but state-sanctioned marriage of any kind is ridiculous as people should have the right to define their own personal contracts and not be bound and restricted to the terms of the state.

Mothers should have mother's rights and fathers should have father's rights. If the state wants to acknowledge and support such rights that is mostly good. But, what the state does wrong is say who can and cannot be married. The state of Vermont involves itself in marriage whether or not they are invited to be involved. That is for individuals to sort out among them selves not for states to butt into.

Gay people must not understand "legal" marriage. Here is how it works. Under "legal" marriage, you ask the state for permission to receive about 1,400 additional rights. They then decide whether or not to grant you such rights. That is a fundamentally flawed way of doing things because we are supposed to have rights whether or not they are applied for.

To ask the state for rights is a grave insult to democracy. And by gays asking for "legal" forms of marriage they are signing over powers to the state that they should not have in the first place!

reply to post by SevenThunders


Every state that embraced money and power has been destroyed.

Every state that embraced capitalism has been destroyed.

Every state that has farmers has been destroyed.

Every state that embraced representative democracy has been destroyed.

All nations eventually fall because people run them. Jesus said quite plainly that our kingdom is not of this world. We get too wrapped up in earthly kingdoms.

Your whole argument is moot because state law can not supersede federal law.

SUPREMACY CLAUSE - "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." U.S. Const. art. VI, Paragraph 2

Under the Supremacy Clause, everyone must follow federal law in the face of conflicting state law. It has long been established that "a state statute is void to the extent that it actually conflicts with a valid federal statute" and that a conflict will be found either where compliance with both federal and state law is impossible or where the state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress. Edgar v. Mite Corp., 457 U.S. 624, 631 (1982). Similarly, we have held that "otherwise valid state laws or court orders cannot stand in the way of a federal court's remedial scheme if the action is essential to enforce the scheme." Stone v. City and County of San Francisco, 968 F.2d 850, 862 (9th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 113 S. Ct. 1050 (1993).

Due to concerns of comity and federalism, the scope of federal injunctive relief against an agency of state government must always be narrowly tailored to enforce federal constitutional and statutory law only. Toussaint v. McCarthy, 801 F.2d 1080, 1089 (9th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1069 (1987). This is critical because "a federal district court's exercise of discretion to enjoin state political bodies raises serious questions regarding the legitimacy of its authority." Id.

link

Nice!

I just hope the Polygamist get to have as many partners as they want now, and the pedophiles get to lower the legal age of consent to 13, and let’s not leave out those who practice beastality.

Its all normal rght?

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler


I like this post actually. Being a gay man who agrees one hundred percent with you, I say go ahead and keep your headaches.

Originally posted by SevenThunders
Every civilization that has embraced homosexuality has been destroyed.

Mmm, have you been to Mykonos lately?

You should, and other than a couple of questionable pelicans, it's not destroyed as of yet.

Edit to add: Amen for equal rights.

[edit on 1 Sep 2009 by schrodingers dog]

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler


OK, that post made me laugh! I've been married, so I know better than to make that mistake twice. But you forgot that those who chose to will also have the right to be their mates next of kin when something bad happens, they will have the right to inherit their mates estate when they die, they will have the right to... You get the point!

reply to post by SevenThunders


I dunno if you've read any history at all but every civilization that ever existed has been destroyed. It has nothing to do with homosexuality.