Gay marriage ban...

[wispandex_bulge]

Did the ban pass in all 8 states that had it up on referendum? In wisconsin here we passed it 60 to 40 ...but on the other side we did reinstate the death penalty for cases which are supported by DNA evidence

 

[B_NineInchCock_160IQ]

Did the ban pass in all 8 states that had it up on referendum? In wisconsin here we passed it 60 to 40 ...but on the other side we did reinstate the death penalty for cases which are supported by DNA evidence

It passed everywhere except Arizona.

 

[fortiesfun]

It did not pass in Arizona, but did in all other states where it was on the ballot. In some of them it may well prove unconstitutional, however, because it specifically excludes not only marriage, but any rights like marriage. Wisconsin is one of those where I understand there is a credible legal challange to be had based on the breadth of the ban.

 

[DC_DEEP]

Virginia passed a "marriage amendment" but it is far from being a "gay marriage ban." It is basically worded so that no entity in the state is required to grant any benefits or protections, generally associated with marriage, to any persons who are not legally married in the state, nor is the state required to recognize any marriage performed outside the state. They may, but are not required to.

So much for full faith and credit.

Unmarried long-term couples in Virginia (hetero, homo, or anywhere in between) beware. You have absolutely no legal protections of any kind.

 

[wispandex_bulge]

It did not pass in Arizona, but did in all other states where it was on the ballot. In some of them it may well prove unconstitutional, however, because it specifically excludes not only marriage, but any rights like marriage. Wisconsin is one of those where I understand there is a credible legal challange to be had based on the breadth of the ban.

I was informed that it is poosible to make "unconstitutional" amendments becuase an amendment does not have to be considered by the supreme court and is judged "constitutional" prima facie becuase it is an amendment. However, I'm sure that at some point in the future it will be challenged...interestingly enough in the wisconsin constitution are is the promise of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" just as in the declaration of independance...all i can say is if an unconstitutional amendment can be allowed to be put on the constitution, then the document is a lot weaker than i thought it was.

PS as i side note i am unsure of the legality when a state constitution directly contradicts the national constitution...as much as i hate big national government, the loss of power in the full faith and credit clause gives me grave concern...

 

[mindseye]

Here's a statistic that cheers me up:

The first statewide constitutional amendment banning gay marriage was ratified in 1998. The table shows, by year, the number of states voting on these amendments (N), and the collective percentage of voters voting against these amendments (P):

Year N P
1998 2 30%
2000 1 30%
2002 1 33%
2004 13 33%
2005 2 25%
2006 8 36%

2006 was the first year a state defeated a "marriage amendment" (Arizona), and the percentage of voters rejecting these amendments has gradually crept up over time. [2005 is due to only two states offering amendments, and one of them -- Texas, where the opposition was crushed -- is so much more populous than the other state, Kansas, as to drag down the total percentage.]

We are losing the battles over gay marriage, but we are winning the war. Homophobes are running out of states to run these amendments in, and at the same time, they're losing support for them.

My prediction:

• Between 2008 and 2016 (but not before the 2008 presidential election), Congress will repeal DOMA, the odious legislation that says that states have to honor each other's opposite-sex marriages, but don't have to honor each other's same-sex marriages.
• Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution states,

  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.

  Once DOMA is repealed, and Congress no longer "prescribes" a lack of recognition for same-sex marriage, there will be a suit brought in federal court that state X (Washington? Oregon?) must recognize a same-sex marriage performed in Massachusetts. After a few years of legal wrangling, the plaintiffs will triumph.
• At this point, a couple anywhere in the US can have a legally-recognized marriage in their home state, provided that they travel somewhere else to get married. Lawsuits will be filed in one of the remaining states without a "marriage amendment" (Arizona?) arguing that the state has no compelling interest in the double standard of honoring a marriage performed in Massachusetts, but not one performed at home. The compelling interest standard will shift the burden of proof to the states, and at least one state will fail to satisfy that burden of proof, resulting in a victory for the plaintiffs and a precedent.
• As the number of states legalizing gay marriage increases, the money lost via tourism to those states will cause at least one or two states to legalize same-sex marriage for economic reasons.
• Eventually, the number of states legalizing gay marriage will increase to the point that the remaining states will be seen as discriminatory, and voters will (perhaps somewhat reluctantly) repeal the amendments they have. There will be a few holdouts, but eventually they will tumble.
• I'm predicting that by 2025 -- 10 years after the repeal of DOMA, same-sex marriage will be legal in a majority of states, and nationwide by 2030. It'll be a long slow process, but we'll see it happen.

 

[B_Stronzo]

You write subjectively and with authority about a topic very near to both our hearts Heath. And you present a rather encouraging premise.

Thanks for lending a ray of hope to a rather sobered Stronzo.

 

[Mumzi]

I don't understand it. With all the problems in this world, why do we care who marries who? Half of the MF marriages fall apart and half of them are not happy. How in the world will gay marriage affect the straight marriage? I can't see where it would.

It seems this is driven by the extremely moral religious right, who,however are not always that moral. Although we don't always find that out until they (oooops) slip up.

 

[invisibleman]

Gay marriage? I am still trying to get a gay date...

Even if gay men and lesbians were allowed to marry, would we honestly stay married? Even heteros, don't stay married. Look at Britney Spears. She treats it trivially.

I think that people aren't going to allow us legal rights and entitlements afforded in marriage. Heteros-in-power are way too selfish in permitting us a legal coupling rights and entitlements. Besides God--if there IS one--isn't coming down anytime soon to say
"Now, now!!! I do believe I want an amendment to the Bible. I know you have evolved sexually--I want all people in love--(gay, straight, bi, whoever) to be able to marry." I believe that if God were to do such a thing. Heteros-in-power would ask God for His credentials. He would show them and STILL they wouldn't give a gay couple or a lesbian couple the legal rights and entitlements of marriage. That's how bumfucked this country is.

Personally, I don't care and never have cared about marriage. I am fine with just dating and hooking up with guys.

 

[AverageJoe06]

I was informed that it is poosible to make "unconstitutional" amendments becuase an amendment does not have to be considered by the supreme court and is judged "constitutional" prima facie becuase it is an amendment.

A state amendment may be prima facie constitutional according to state law, but the supremacy clause says that the US Constitution is the supreme law of the land. If a state amendment doesn't hee haw with the US Constitution, it will be struck down by the US Supreme Court. Not that any constitution in this country - state or federal - is worth the paper it's written on, but it is a legal point.

I can't speak for anybody else, but I sleep better at night knowing that we Americans have nothing better to worry about than who's sticking it where. Never mind that the North Koreans are testing nukes, the Iranians are testing missiles, 9 billion dollars sent to Iraq has been "lost," and every phone call you make is monitored by the spooks. It's you fucking homos that are threatening civilization. [insert smilies for the sarcastically impaired :wink:]

 

[rob_just_rob]

I'm predicting that by 2025 -- 10 years after the repeal of DOMA, same-sex marriage will be legal in a majority of states, and nationwide by 2030. It'll be a long slow process, but we'll see it happen.

I predict we'll all be here in 2030, drinking champagne and applauding your foresight! :smile:

 

[ecchi_rebirth]

Gay marriage? I am still trying to get a gay date...

Even if gay men and lesbians were allowed to marry, would we honestly stay married? Even heteros, don't stay married. Look at Britney Spears. She treats it trivially.

I think that people aren't going to allow us legal rights and entitlements afforded in marriage. Heteros-in-power are way too selfish in permitting us a legal coupling rights and entitlements. Besides God--if there IS one--isn't coming down anytime soon to say
"Now, now!!! I do believe I want an amendment to the Bible. I know you have evolved sexually--I want all people in love--(gay, straight, bi, whoever) to be able to marry." I believe that if God were to do such a thing. Heteros-in-power would ask God for His credentials. He would show them and STILL they wouldn't give a gay couple or a lesbian couple the legal rights and entitlements of marriage. That's how bumfucked this country is.

Personally, I don't care and never have cared about marriage. I am fine with just dating and hooking up with guys.

I'll quote Lemmy Kilmister here, I think it's appropiate to the whole situation.

"God is on your side, but I don't know if you're on his,
If Jesus showed up now, he'd be in jail by next week!"

 

[DC_DEEP]

<...>Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution states, "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." Once DOMA is repealed, and Congress no longer "prescribes" a lack of recognition for same-sex marriage, there will be a suit brought in federal court that state X (Washington? Oregon?) must recognize a same-sex marriage performed in Massachusetts. After a few years of legal wrangling, the plaintiffs will triumph.

Thanks for bringing that one up again, mindseye. I will ask for your assistance on something that has bothered me since DOMA was signed into "law." In all the suits that have been brought up, have any of the "watchdog" groups (HRC, ACLU, NCSF) actually challenged DOMA to the full faith and credit test? In the brief coverage I have seen, on any of these suits, it seems that the main focus of the lawsuit is not challenging the heart of DOMA, or 14th Amendment scrutiny, for that matter.

Nor have I seen any of the lawsuits addressing the concept that "simply attempting to make a legal lexicon out of a state constitution does not bring it into compliance with full faith and credit, first amendment, and fourteenth amendment." What have I missed?

 

[mindseye]

So far, DOMA has been upheld in federal courts, and the Supreme Court has declined to review any DOMA cases -- so they haven't had to issue a decision one way or the other (given the makeup of the current court, this might not be a bad thing...) I haven't read through the federal cases closely enough to pay attention to the specific grounds on which DOMA was challenged.

MarriageEquality.org maintains a pretty good rundown of recent news on DOMA.

 

[DC_DEEP]

Thanks, mindseye. I just don't seem to have the time to keep up with all the issues I care about.

Mumzi, you ask a good question, but so far, I have heard no good answers. When I wrote to Senator Warner about the federal one, before it met its demise, I asked him directly: "If your real interest is in protecting the institution of marriage, why are you preventing people from marrying, rather than preventing people from divorcing? Would you be willing to vote for a constitutional amendment to ban divorce?"

He refused to reply. Small wonder, considering his marriage track record, and especially that of his ex-wife, Ms. Taylor.