The Dumbest Thing I've Seen On Cable News Today....

[Scooter]

The precedents were provided the last time we had this discussion and you attempted to peddle the same crap. Latham v. Latham, a marriage contracted in Michigan was not valid in Wisconsin because it was contracted within the one year waiting period after divorce required under Wisconsin law. Osionach v. Watkins, marriage between nephew and uncle's widow in Georgia not recognized in Alabama where such marriages are considered incestuous. Toler v. Oakwood Smokeless Coal Corp, second marriage when first husband was presumed dead was performed and considered valid in West Virginia but declared void in Virginia on the grounds of bigamy.

And again, as I said previously, there was a century or more in U.S. history when interracial marriages were legal in some states and illegal in others; none of the latter were ever required to recognize such marriages performed in the former.

The plethora of case law on the matter makes it clear that states have ALWAYS retained the right to refuse to recognize the marriages performed in other states on public policy grounds. The argument that FFC had never been tested in the context of SSM is ridiculous; surely if FFC could not force the recognition of marriages prohibited on the basis of race, then the ability to maintain a prohibition of SSM in the face of FFC would be a no brainer.

The FFC argument has long been exposed for what it was - nothing but a pretense used to deny federal recognition to same-sex marriages legally contracted where they were performed. Because, if what you say is true, and DOMA was only supposed to be about not forcing recognition of SSM by states that didn't want to, then why the need to deny federal recognition to marriages that were legally contracted? That part of DOMA would never have had to be enacted to protect the rights of states, would it? And yet there it is.

[Guinevere]

Where is LJ's bingo graphic when you need it?

Dave, all signs point to it being time for you to pick up and get the hell out of the Northeast. Head down to the South, where your antiquated and bigoted self will fit right in. I'm sure you could find a job down there that doesn't bore you, and where you don't have to report to women.

[dgs49]

Dearest Guin,

(a) Pittsburgh is not in the "Northeast." It is Mid-Atlantic.

(b) If you had taken the time to read any of my postings here (not only on this thread), the point of discussion is not whether I personally approve of gay "marriages." It is about the current Administration's ridiculous contortions on the issue, given the fact that there is no real doubt about where they stand.

(c) I couldn't care less whether Pennsylvania or any other state sanctions gay marriages, and believe that there is no Constitutional or logical reason why a state cannot define "marriage" any way it wants to.

(d) Regardless, there is nothing "bigoted" about citizens wanting their home states to define marriage as betweein a man and a woman, as has been the case for eons, and as justified by the marriage paradigm that is the basis for most relevant statutes.

(e) But of course, "bigoted" is the sort of word that Liberals use when they have no cogent arguments to make, so it is not surprising that you employ it.

Feel free to disagree, substantively, with anything I've posted. As you note, I have lots of time.

[Scooter]

And yet, you haven't managed to come up with anything that supports the notion that states would have had to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states on the basis of Full Faith and Credit. So thanks for admitting the entire line of argument is bogus.

[Scooter]

Since Dave is always telling me that I already have marriage equality because I can marry any woman I want :

[Guinevere]

I saw this floating around Facebook today and thought it a terrific image. Homosexual men and women are (finally) openly accepted in our armed forces, pay the same taxes as the rest of us, and yet still can't marry who they love in more than half of the states. It's such bullshit.

[dgs49]

From Wikipedia:

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) (Pub.L. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419, enacted September 21, 1996, 1 U.S.C. § 7 and 28 U.S.C. § 1738C) is a United States federal law that defines marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman. The law passed both houses of Congress by large majorities [84-15 in the Senate and 342-67 in the House] and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton [a Democrat if I remember correctly] on September 21, 1996.

Under the law, no state or other political subdivision of the U.S. may be required to recognize as a marriage a same-sex relationship considered a marriage in another state. Section 3 of DOMA codifies the non-recognition of same-sex marriage for all federal purposes, including insurance benefits for government employees, Social Security survivors' benefits, and the filing of joint tax returns.

Scooter, I realize you make it a point never to concede anything, but what the fuck do you need to acknowledge that the whole interstate thrust of this law was a reaction to the "full faith & credit" wording of Article IV?

And Guin, I'll tell you what's bullshit: Pretending that there is anything in this country preventing people from having any fucking relationship they want to have. To hear the President talk you would think that there are armed garrisons preventing people from loving each other. It is TOTAL bullshit.

[Scooter]

This:

Under the law, no state or other political subdivision of the U.S. may be required to recognize as a marriage a same-sex relationship considered a marriage in another state.

was nothing but a pretense for this:

Section 3 of DOMA codifies the non-recognition of same-sex marriage for all federal purposes, including insurance benefits for government employees, Social Security survivors' benefits, and the filing of joint tax returns.

what the fuck do you need to acknowledge that the whole interstate thrust of this law was a reaction to the "full faith & credit" wording of Article IV?

How about some proof that Article IV could be used to get states to recognize the marriages performed in other states, if they were offensive to the former on public policy grounds? You can't provide any such proof, because the body of jurisprudence on interstate recognition of marriages says that Full Faith and Credit does not apply. I mean, Jesus H. Fucking Christ on a sidecar, how many times do the fucking cases have to be pointed out to you chapter and verse before you get it?

And Guin, I'll tell you what's bullshit: Pretending that there is anything in this country preventing people from having any fucking relationship they want to have.

They can't have a fucking legal marriage that's fucking recognized by the federal fucking government. How does that not constitute a relationship they cannot have?

[Guinevere]

And Guin, I'll tell you what's bullshit: Pretending that there is anything in this country preventing people from having any fucking relationship they want to have. To hear the President talk you would think that there are armed garrisons preventing people from loving each other. It is TOTAL bullshit.

Of course, I didn't say "any fucking relationship" I said marriage.

[dgs49]

"Marriage" is a legally-defined set of rights, protections, and prerogatives, created by a State to implement the social policies of the State. Most of these policies concern the protection of non-working wives and the protection of the interests of the children of the marriage, neither of which has any relevance whatosever to homosexual couples.

The relevant statute does not define the personal relationship of the parties. They may be sexual partners or not. They may be monogamous or not. They may like each other or not. They may live together or not. They may have children or not. They may own property together or not. The State does not dictate or interfere with any of this.

ANY TWO (or more) UNMARRIED COMPETENT ADULTS can have whatever sort of personal relationship they like, without any interference from the State. They may be sexual partners or not. They may be monogamous or not. They may like each other or not. They may live together or not. They may have children or not. They may own property together or not. The State does not dictate or interfere with any of this.

If the state chooses to revise its statute to encompass non-traditional relationships, that is their prerogative, but (for a President) to make a blanket statement that "homosexuals ought to be able to get married," is nonsense. In the vast majority of states, the relevant statute was formulated with a single paradigm in mind, and that paradigm DOES NOT APPLY TO HOMOSEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS.

It is a States' rights issue.

[Guinevere]

It's the 21st century Dave -- even assuming your narrow paradigm is correct, and I'm no conceding it is --- same sex couples may have exactly the same concerns regarding a non-working spouse and children. Why don't they get the same protections?

[Scooter]

It is a States' rights issue.

Then why not leave it to the states without the federal government interfering in the form of DOMA to deny federal recognition to marriages a state has deemed to be legal?

And don't even bother parrotting "Full Faith and Credit" one more time unless you can come up with the case law to demonstrate that it would have even applied.

[loCAtek]

[Econoline]

Good one, LoCa!