Chad Ellis
United States
Brookline
Massachusetts
-
A bill legalizing same-sex marriage has just passed the Senate. The House apparently has ample votes to pass it and the Governor supports it.
I think Newt's going to be wrong on this one. 
-
Rich Hussein Shipley
United States
Baltimore
Maryland
By some definitions, gaming is my religion
-
Looks like Maryland is about to try again as well.
-
King Ævil
South Euclid
Ohio
-
Hooray for WA!
More info
-
-
Well I say good for them. I believe every "man" should suffer the effects of a wife. (Mate) Personally, I am tired of seeing happy, single men out with their buddies....care-free, joyful, content, living life as they please, gaming when they want....So get married and suffer like the rest of us.
p.s. See what I do when I have a slow day at work?
Lastly, if I am not seen again please send the police after my wife.
-
Jim §
United States
Seattle
Washington
-
It is great to see this happen in our state!
And no judicial decision for those opposed to complain about "activist judges". However, they are complaining now about forcing this down their throats by "legislative fiat", i.e. the legislature doing its job. There's no pleasing these opponents. If it was approved by initiative or referendum vote, they would probably say it was "mob rule".
May more states go this way!
Jim
-
Chad Ellis
United States
Brookline
Massachusetts
-
jimwithatwist wrote: And no judicial decision for those opposed to complain about "activist judges". However, they are complaining now about forcing this down their throats by "legislative fiat", i.e. the legislature doing its job.
It's definitely been interesting watching how some (certainly not all, but a significant number) of opponents of same-sex marriage have changed the way they think these matters should be decided. When they thought the legislatures were safe then it was all about the normal legislative process and the problem was activist judges. Now as legislatures are starting to pass same-sex marriage bills it's a matter of principal that something like this should be left to the people via referendum. I think you're likely right that if a state passes same-sex marriage through referendum there will be something profoundly illegitimate about that, too.
Maybe they'll argue that if only the courts weren't so left-wing they could fulfill their sacred duty to overturn these laws in the name of protecting religious liberty?
Either that or they'll chuck state's rights in an attempt to pass a constitutional amendment.
-
Nate Mohling
United States
Marion
Iowa
-
Huzzah! Welcome to the club, Washington!!!
-
Dan Schaeffer
United States
Unspecified
Illinois
-
Chad_Ellis wrote: jimwithatwist wrote: And no judicial decision for those opposed to complain about "activist judges". However, they are complaining now about forcing this down their throats by "legislative fiat", i.e. the legislature doing its job. It's definitely been interesting watching how some (certainly not all, but a significant number) of opponents of same-sex marriage have changed the way they think these matters should be decided. When they thought the legislatures were safe then it was all about the normal legislative process and the problem was activist judges. Now as legislatures are starting to pass same-sex marriage bills it's a matter of principal that something like this should be left to the people via referendum. I think you're likely right that if a state passes same-sex marriage through referendum there will be something profoundly illegitimate about that, too. Maybe they'll argue that if only the courts weren't so left-wing they could fulfill their sacred duty to overturn these laws in the name of protecting religious liberty? Either that or they'll chuck state's rights in an attempt to pass a constitutional amendment.
Goddam legislature, passing laws to reflect the will of the people. Who do they think they are?
-
Clay
United States
Alabama
-
Man, thought you meant D.C. for a second there. Still great.
-
Not Just Wrong- SPECTACULARLY WRONG.
Spain
Texas
-
Hmmm-
Classic example of the East-West split in Washington State. The East side (Spokane, Yakima) isn't particularly happy about being outvoted by the Sea-Tac-Olympia Megaplex.
Won't come to much- I hope. Probably some more cranks will get together and talk about joining up with N. Idaho.
Darilian
-
Conrad
United States
New York City
New York
Who is bought and sold? Who is beyond the law? Who is free to choose? Who follows orders? Who salutes longest? Who prays loudest? Who dies first? Who laughs last? -Barbara Kruger
"Now a question of etiquette: as I pass, do I give you the ass or the crotch?"
-
Darilian wrote: Probably some more cranks will get together and talk about joining up with N. Idaho.
Oh, the cranks already talk about that...
-
Not Just Wrong- SPECTACULARLY WRONG.
Spain
Texas
-
kamchatka wrote: Darilian wrote: Probably some more cranks will get together and talk about joining up with N. Idaho. Oh, the cranks already talk about that...
Aryan Nations were crushed in 1997, when Butler lost a civil rights lawsuit and lost his compound. They're still around, but not in the same strength.
No, I'm talking about more of what was called the 'militia' movement, or more properly, the Posse Comitatus movement. They're FAR less organized, but much more networked.
That said, I've seen nothing that indicates that the NW is going to go through another round of violence akin to the bad years of the 1990's and the hysteria over Y2K.
Darilian
-
Jarred
United States
University Place
Washington
-
I have a few paranoid militia-type family members in eastern WA. They're sort of fun to observe in their natural habitat.
-
J
United States
San Diego
California
-
Chad_Ellis wrote: Either that or they'll chuck state's rights in an attempt to pass a constitutional amendment.
That would likely backfire, the latest polls show a majority of Americans support same-sex marriage. If the opponents can try for Ammendment to forbid it, then the opposite should also be possible and we could get an Ammendment making it legal in all states. That won't happen but...
-
Daniel Edwards
United Kingdom
London
Unspecified
-
This is positive but I can't help but think how practically silly it is to determine marital status on a state by state basis. Imagine a road trip from one end of the country to the other. "We're married, no we're not, yes, no ..."
Still, small steps.
-
Jim §
United States
Seattle
Washington
-
myopia wrote: This is positive but I can't help but think how practically silly it is to determine marital status on a state by state basis. Imagine a road trip from one end of the country to the other. "We're married, no we're not, yes, no ..."
Still, small steps.
Yeah, it is, but that goes back to before the founding of the U.S. and the idea of a limited federal government. DOMA aside, marriage is the business of the States, not the feds. Of course, if the US Supreme Court decides that laws prohibiting same-sex marriage violate the Constitutional requirements of equal protection or religious freedom, then the whole landscape could change. I'm not holding by breath, though...
-
Chad Ellis
United States
Brookline
Massachusetts
-
bjlillo wrote: I'm also pleased this is going through the legislature. Seems more legitimate to me.
BJ, definitely part of the "certainly not all". 
-
Daniel Edwards
United Kingdom
London
Unspecified
-
jimwithatwist wrote: myopia wrote: This is positive but I can't help but think how practically silly it is to determine marital status on a state by state basis. Imagine a road trip from one end of the country to the other. "We're married, no we're not, yes, no ..."
Still, small steps.
Yeah, it is, but that goes back to before the founding of the U.S. and the idea of a limited federal government. DOMA aside, marriage is the business of the States, not the feds. Of course, if the US Supreme Court decides that laws prohibiting same-sex marriage violate the Constitutional requirements of equal protection or religious freedom, then the whole landscape could change. I'm not holding by breath, though...
Yeah thats why I said practically silly. I understand why things are the way they are.
As Mark says above (c'mon its been verified this is Chiddler right; if not you guys should totally meet up your soulmates) marriage is just an inappropriate thing to determine on anything but a federal level.
My wife and I reside in the UK on an ancestry visa which allows me and my dependants to live in the UK and work. I have to prove her status (married to me) for her to stay.
Now say I'm American and gay. Does the UK government recognise my gay marriage in Washington? What if I'm from Arizona and go get married in Washington?
Or to do it the other way around. What if a gay American marries someone from the UK in London. Do both of them make it past the border? Currently the answer of course is no.
The concept of marriage is so important to national issues like tax and immigration it just doesn't make sense to leave marriage to the states. Although of course the US constitution says what is says.
-
Conrad
United States
New York City
New York
Who is bought and sold? Who is beyond the law? Who is free to choose? Who follows orders? Who salutes longest? Who prays loudest? Who dies first? Who laughs last? -Barbara Kruger
"Now a question of etiquette: as I pass, do I give you the ass or the crotch?"
-
myopia wrote: The concept of marriage is so important to national issues like tax and immigration it just doesn't make sense to leave marriage to the states. Although of course the US constitution says what is says.
The Constitution, article IV, section 1 wrote: 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.
-
Ken
United States
Crystal Lake
Illinois
-
myopia wrote: This is positive but I can't help but think how practically silly it is to determine marital status on a state by state basis. Imagine a road trip from one end of the country to the other. "We're married, no we're not, yes, no ..."
Still, small steps.
This is only true because the US has passed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) at the federal level, which lets each state decide whether they will recognize same sex marriage or not. If that is overturned in the courts or repealed, then a marriage of any flavor in one state must be considered binding in all of them under the "full faith and credit" clause of the constitution. It's being challenged in the courts, which is where it's going to be decided at the moment because there doesn't seem to be any way that the House would pass a repeal and it would almost certainly get filibustered in the Senate.
But good for WA and here's hoping DOMA goes the way of the dodo.
-
Jim §
United States
Seattle
Washington
-
kamchatka wrote: myopia wrote: The concept of marriage is so important to national issues like tax and immigration it just doesn't make sense to leave marriage to the states. Although of course the US constitution says what is says. The Constitution, article IV, section 1 wrote: 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.
Unfortunately, it is likely that the Full Faith and Credit Clause (FFC) won't be applied successfully when courts look at forcing recognition by States of same-sex marriages in other States.
The federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), 28 USC 1738C, says: "No State . . . shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State . . . respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State . . . or a right or claim arising from such relationship." Many States have their own DOMA laws, as well.
In addition, the Full Faith & Credit Clause itself, which is what makes judgments portable from state to state, does not protect statuses. This is why states don’t have to honor each other’s marriages; being married is a status. I believe this is why the FFC arguments never went anywhere in the fight to force recognition of inter-racial marriage. Therefore, until the federal DOMA law is repealed or struck down, I doubt the FFC can be used successfully, and even then I have doubts.
If the US Supreme Court (or any federal court) is going to rule on same-sex marriages (normally, it will likely be considering the Equal Protection Clause (EPC) of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution: ".... 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."
The Fifth Circuit (Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning, 2006) ruled that the EPC did not protect gays and lesbians in regards to same-sex marriage, and that case was not appealed. However, the Ninth Circuit (Perry v. Schwarzenegger) is considering the appeal a well-written opinion, based on the EPC, by a Federal District Court in California that struck down Prop 8 (the proposition banning same-sex marriage). It seems that this case, regardless of the ruling of the Court, will likely go up to the US Supreme Court, but once there, it could go either way.
Just my thoughts, but well-plagiarized and cannibalized thoughts, to be sure.
Jim
-
Ken
United States
Crystal Lake
Illinois
-
jimwithatwist wrote: In addition, the Full Faith & Credit Clause itself, which is what makes judgments portable from state to state, does not protect statuses.
Ummmmm. What? I think whoever suggested this to you should talk with a lawyer because the clause doesn't make this distinction at all. "Public Acts" is a reference to legislative action, records reflects statuses, and judicial proceedings can as well (for example, if I divorce in one state and my wife is granted full custody of our children, that change to my parental rights is a status that all states are required to recognize).
This is a bad, bad, bad argument that doesn't even stand up for a heterosexual marriage, let alone any other status. Texas doesn't have a choice but to recognize a marriage conducted between a man and a woman in another state because that's what the Constitution says and DOMA permits.
But I'm not a lawyer. Invite Kenneth Pike (alaren) to come over and comment if you like.
-
Jim §
United States
Seattle
Washington
-
perfalbion wrote: jimwithatwist wrote: In addition, the Full Faith & Credit Clause itself, which is what makes judgments portable from state to state, does not protect statuses. Ummmmm. What? I think whoever suggested this to you should talk with a lawyer because the clause doesn't make this distinction at all. "Public Acts" is a reference to legislative action, records reflects statuses, and judicial proceedings can as well (for example, if I divorce in one state and my wife is granted full custody of our children, that change to my parental rights is a status that all states are required to recognize). This is a bad, bad, bad argument that doesn't even stand up for a heterosexual marriage, let alone any other status. Texas doesn't have a choice but to recognize a marriage conducted between a man and a woman in another state because that's what the Constitution says and DOMA permits. But I'm not a lawyer. Invite Kenneth Pike (alaren) to come over and comment if you like.
I disagree here. Although the Clause says what it says, the Courts seem to have used the Clause primarily for enforcing court judgments from one State to another. Divorce decrees are court judgments. In the whole history of the fight against prohibitions on inter-racial marriage, it was the Equal Protection Clause that finally won the day. The Full Faith and Credit Clause arguments were rejected. The FFC Clause has been used to support (and reject) arguments for modifying birth certificates for adoptions by the non-birth parent of a same-sex couple, but that seems to be unsettled case law generally, and a wholly different matter.
Put it this way, let's look at first cousin marriages (or underage marriages, etc.). Is a State that doesn't allow first cousin marriages forced to accept an out-of-state first-cousin marriage when that married couple moves to that State? No. Why? Because those States that forbid it have a law and/or local public policy that states that prohibition (the "public policy doctrine"). The reason every State recognizes otherwise unobjectional, out-of-state heterosexual marriages is because those States allow them inside their State. Marriage is not a judgment; marriage is a license.
Disclaimer: this opinion of mine is just a result of a cursory look online at legal websites and court opinions, and my second year of law school many years ago. It is possible that Constitutional case law is more unsettled in reality, but I don't believe it is.
Still want to see Washington same-sex marriages happen, of course. And it will be an awesome day(s) when DOMA is repealed or struck down and same-sex couples nationwide have the same right to marry each other as opposite-sex couples do now.
Jim
P.S. - This discussion and opinion should not to be considered a valid legal opinion that should be relied upon, blah, blah, legal gobbledy-gook blah.
-
Ken
United States
Crystal Lake
Illinois
-
jimwithatwist wrote: I disagree here. Although the Clause says what it says, the Courts seem to have used the Clause primarily for enforcing court judgments from one State to another.
Hogwash. When a company incorporates, that's not a court judgement. Yet every state in the union recognizes that company as a legal entity. Your marriage in and of itself is not a court document, yet if you're heterosexual there's no state in the union that wouldn't recognize that status (at least there wasn't before DOMA that I've ever heard that didn't involve anti-miscegination and those laws were struck down under the clause). This was true even if the marriage would not have been permitted under one state's laws due to age restrictions that differ. Your driver's license isn't a court document, but it's valid in all 50 states even if the requirements to get one differ from state to state. Those are all "statuses".
This argument is 100% bunk based on my limited, non-lawyerly understanding of the law.
-
Jim §
United States
Seattle
Washington
-
perfalbion wrote: jimwithatwist wrote: I disagree here. Although the Clause says what it says, the Courts seem to have used the Clause primarily for enforcing court judgments from one State to another. Hogwash. When a company incorporates, that's not a court judgement. Yet every state in the union recognizes that company as a legal entity. Your marriage in and of itself is not a court document, yet if you're heterosexual there's no state in the union that wouldn't recognize that status (at least there wasn't before DOMA that I've ever heard that didn't involve anti-miscegination and those laws were struck down under the clause). This was true even if the marriage would not have been permitted under one state's laws due to age restrictions that differ. Your driver's license isn't a court document, but it's valid in all 50 states even if the requirements to get one differ from state to state. Those are all "statuses". This argument is 100% bunk based on my limited, non-lawyerly understanding of the law.
We'll agree to disagree then (the cardinal rule of RSP?).
If I recall correctly, corporations do not have staus in a state unless registered with that State. And I believe driver's licenses have certain standards under federal statute that if met are required to be recognized by all states (maybe because of interstate commerce and highways). Anti-miscegination laws were struck down under the Equal Protection Clause (and Due Process Clause) of the 14th Amendment, not under the Full Faith and Credit Clause. See Loving v. Virginia, the US Supreme Court case that struck down those laws.
And finally,
Do we need a third-party mediator? 
Jim
-
|
|
