|
|
Post by ShonenSenshiDave on Nov 22, 2003 9:36:18 GMT -5
Well, it's been all over the news and the ruling was finally handed down. In twin cases, the Massachusetts High Court gave the thumbs up to gay marriage, while the New Jersey Appellate Courts denied the same (although there is a higher court to appeal to). Based on the recent US Supreme Court holding in Texas v. Geddes and it's own state laws allowing gay couples a number of rights which married couples have, the court held that the state's prohibition on same-sex unions was unconstitutional under that state's constitution.
Two other states faced similar challenges several years ago, and in both cases the Alaska and Hawai'i Supreme Courts made the same decicion... although the legislatures of each state amended their constitutions to ban such unions, instead opting for "domestic partnerships", while Vermont's highest court, recognizing that bans prohibiting same sex unions were unconstitutional, allowed the Legislature to formulate a "civil union" statute creating a "separate but equal" system for same-sex unions.
Massachusetts has 6 months to get thier laws in order, and my understanding is that it takes 3 years to amend the constitution in that state, so they may not be able to go the Alaska/Hawai'i route....
So, are we seeing the decline of Western Civilization, or are we finally catching up with the new world order and international law?
****Please, no flaming... serious posts only!****
|
|
|
|
Post by Hussar on Nov 22, 2003 20:59:52 GMT -5
Finally America is starting to move out of the stone ages. Join the rest of us in the 21st century please. Live up to your own promises of freedom for all! It's about bloody time.
One thing I had to laugh about was after some of the troops started to come back from the Gulf. It was on CNN and they were talking about how the American soldiers were being greeted by their loved ones, except for the gay soldiers because of the don't ask don't tell policy. Whereas the British soldiers were returning and being greeted by everyone. Yet, I've never heard how the British military is being turned into a bunch of wooses because of the gays. Hmm. Makes you think.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wyrmfire on Nov 23, 2003 2:25:51 GMT -5
Certainly a step in the right direction, although it's not really certain yet. SSD, you're the lawyer here, but I have heard some bizzare gray area makes it certain that gays can be divorced, but not necessarily married. Others would know better than I do.
The one thing that worries me though, is that they will require that gays are allowed to be married in the religious sense. Not that I have anything against it, but I would hate it if the government required priests to marry gays against what they consider the tenents of their religion. Sacrificing one freedom for another isn't a good deal, but organized religion and the freedom thereof is under fire already, and I'm worried that many people will be all too willing to take a few more shots.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hussar on Nov 23, 2003 5:20:55 GMT -5
Wyrmy, while I may not be a lawyer, I do have a decent enough grasp on American politics that tells me that there isn't a hope for the American government to do that even if it wanted to. First off, it would be political suicide for any politician to put forward such legislation and second, I'm pretty sure that's unconstitutional.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShonenSenshiDave on Nov 23, 2003 7:43:10 GMT -5
The legal grey area to which you refer would actually be divorce. The US Constitution, Article 5, IIRC, (whcih is codified in statute in Chapter 18 of the United States Code) deals with what is called "Full Faith and Credit". Basically, a state must recognize the judgment of another. Unfortunately, IIRC, it's mostly used in business or contract law, and not family law  The concern is that if Mass. allows gay marriage, TX (for example) won't recognize the marriage. The problem then becomes, does TX have to do the divorce? I see the concern; one of the VT couples actually had this problem in TX... TX didn't recognize the marriage as valid, and not too many legal commentators are sure who gets to handle the divorce! As for the religious aspect, the 1st Amendment guarantees that no Church will have to marry gay couples unless it's Pastor feels it's apprpriate, which means a lot of gays will be going to UCC, UU, and possibly the American Episcopal Church and Reconstructionist Jewish Temples. Hussar, your argument has fallen on deaf ears for years. England, most Northern European countries, and some central European countries, as well ans Canada and Australia, IIRC, allow gay soldiers. Their militaries haven't fallen apart yet, but the US doesn't care. The US wants to be the bastion of freedom, as long as it's conservative freedom that doesn't step on the religious right's toes. Funny, the First Amendment guarantees Wyrm freedom OF religion, just as much as it guarantees me freedom FROM religion. And yet, our leaders loves spouting the bible and running this country based on religious principles.... |
|
|
|
Post by Hussar on Nov 23, 2003 9:00:35 GMT -5
Now here's a question. If a gay couple comes to Canada and gets married, and then moves to the States, and then tries to get a divorce, how does that work?
I mean, in a straight marriage, it's no problem right? You follow local laws. But, does that mean that the gay couple has to come back to Canada to get divorced?
|
|
|
|
Post by khyron1144 on Nov 23, 2003 14:43:00 GMT -5
I'm all for gays getting the same rights as everybody else, and hope that this thing spreads.
To answer the question Hussar posed, it is in my lay person's opinion somewhat anologous to other questions where marriage laws differ from state to state and country to country. Some states allow fourteen year olds to marry. If a fellow takes his fourteen year old girl friend to one of those states and marries her and then moves back to his home state, his home state has to recognize the marriage and handle a divorce if one of them shoud file later on.
The situation with gay marriages should be similar. If a gay couple gets married in a state that allows such marriages, they ought to be considered married when they go back home.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wyrmfire on Nov 23, 2003 15:32:03 GMT -5
SSD,
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
I'm sure you've memorized this, but it is a mystery to me where you see a freedom from religion written anywhere. There is nothing stoping me from running over to your house right now and banging your head with a bible until next Thursday. Any such law would be "prohibiting the free excercise thereof" in fact.
As far as politicians go, a law motivated by a religion and a law respecting religion are two different things. A congressman's motivation for voting one way or the other is wholy irrelevant.
The fact that you consider yourself to have the right of freedom FROM religion is exactly what I meant when I said that it is under fire.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hussar on Nov 23, 2003 21:25:04 GMT -5
But Wyrmy, if you come to my house (Ie. not public property), bang on my door and start preaching to me, is that not infringing on my rights to privacy? Shouldn't I have the right to say, "NO, don't come on my land, I don't want to hear that." Religion in the States is hardly under fire. Unless you happen to be Muslim. With Bush, fundamental Christian issues have been pushed into the forefront all along the line. Just to add. Out of curiosity, I did a little poking around about people going door to door and preaching. Both the US and Canada have recently upheld the constitution and allowed people to do this. There is nothing preventing you from preaching door to door. I'm not sure if I agree with this, but, there you go. As far as attacking Christians, it's websites like this little gem I came across on my above little poking around that scares the living bejeebers out of me. www.wcuweb.com/Documents/NEWSLETTERS/2001,wcuupdatejuly-sept.htm and another one here; pages.globetrotter.net/mleblank/wt/fifth-transcript-a.html |
|
|
|
Post by ShonenSenshiDave on Nov 24, 2003 7:01:27 GMT -5
ok, where to begin...
Hussar:
I have no clue! In a normal world, you'd get the darn divorce wherever you happen to live. With most states prohibiting gay marriages, no one really knows where they're supposed to go!
Khyron:
I debated your point over and over and over with my family law professor, believe me. The problem we're running into is twofold, however. First, even the US Congress has stepped in and passed a federal law regulating marriage, laws usually left to the state. Secondly, tthere arer states trying to amend their constitutions to prohibit it, which makes things sticky. Under normal circumstances, the marriages should be recognized, but the reality is that they are not...
Wyrm:
I have gotten my interpretation directly from the mouth of the US Supreme Court, who has stated that the 1st Amendment also means freedom from religion. Their words not mine!
As for your second statement, I totally disagree. I don;t care if they are motivated by religion or establishing religion, it has the same effect; they are not doing their jobs. Their jobs are to uphold the US Constitution and the rights of ALL Americans, not vote according to their own personal religious beliefs. By voting according to their religious beliefs, and spouting off this crap about the US being a Christian nation, they are trying to turn the US into a de facto Christian nation; we may not be Christian in name, but Christian in fact. Which, by the way, is just as unconstitutional as doing it by law!
more later, I need to get ready for work...
|
|
|
|
Post by CharleHu$$tle on Nov 24, 2003 12:42:32 GMT -5
LOok I do not approve of homosexuality at all. But it is not my place to say it's not right for you.
Personally if they want to get married and grow old and fatt togther then cool!
maybe now they will understand why married men are so Pissed all the time!
|
|
|
|
Post by Galadon on Nov 24, 2003 18:49:51 GMT -5
Just another point, according to the US Constitution a U.S. citizen does not have a right to general privacy, there are only two specific privacy stated.
Right not to have soldiers quartered in your house.
Right against illegal search and sezsure.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wyrmfire on Nov 24, 2003 19:38:48 GMT -5
ok, where to begin... Wyrm: I have gotten my interpretation directly from the mouth of the US Supreme Court, who has stated that the 1st Amendment also means freedom from religion. Their words not mine! As for your second statement, I totally disagree. I don;t care if they are motivated by religion or establishing religion, it has the same effect; they are not doing their jobs. Their jobs are to uphold the US Constitution and the rights of ALL Americans, not vote according to their own personal religious beliefs. By voting according to their religious beliefs, and spouting off this crap about the US being a Christian nation, they are trying to turn the US into a de facto Christian nation; we may not be Christian in name, but Christian in fact. Which, by the way, is just as unconstitutional as doing it by law! What ruling was that? I'm not trying to be combative, that's an actual question. I have just never heard of any such ruling. As for politicians: their job is, by nature, restrictive of rights, not protective. They pass laws, which are by nature limiting. Even if a law is designed to grant freedoms, it has to be worded in such a way that it limits the abilities of others to restrict those freedoms, and not a simple "you can do this now" (did that make sense?) The constitution clearly states what freedoms they can't mess with, and what freedoms aren't listed there are fair game. If you think privacy should be a right, amend the constitution, don't just claim it as a right and create some massive grey area. Anyway, if a politician's views aren't alloed to determine what s/he votes for, what is? Flip a coin, perhaps? Your statement that it is their jobs to simply "uphold the rights of the citezenry and the constitution" isn't really valid, because they wouldn't have to pass ANY laws of that were the case. A judge would just rule based on the constitution. |
|
|
|
Post by Hussar on Nov 24, 2003 20:30:15 GMT -5
Actually, to respectfully disagree Wyrmy. A repubican Constitution grants absolutely no rights to its citizens other than what is specifically delineated or outlined within the Constitution. Last time I checked, the US was a republic. That's why your Constitution states things like having the right to bear arms (or arm bears, whatever  ) Whereas the constitution in a parliamentary system grants all rights except what is limited by the constitution. Thus, in Canada, there is no right to say, own guns. However, since there is nothing in the Constitution preventing ownership, we automatically have the right to own guns. It's not a case of one being better than the other, its more about approaching the same thing from opposite ends. This is why American laws are phrased in such a way to prevent others from infringing on them later. But, Wyrmy, you didn't answer my question. Maybe I don't have a constitutional right to privacy, fair enough. How about legal recourse then? If I have a sign up that says No Tresspassing and another that says No Soliciting, and someone comes on my property to give me leaflets, aren't I entitled to protect my home? Isn't that person intruding on MY land, on MY property, to do something that I don't like or agree with? If that person does that on public property, I agree with you 100% that he or she should be allowed to do so. But, when that person comes onto private property, my property, don't I have the right to prevent that? |
|
|
|
Post by Galadon on Nov 24, 2003 20:37:08 GMT -5
Now your mixing the apples and oranges. You don't have a Constitutional right to general privacy. States can make laws protecting privacy.
|
|
