Gay, Gay, More Gay: Can't We All Just Get It Straight?

"Damn it," says Kenneth Cole in ads all over the fine city of New York. "Why are people not thinking straight about gay marriage?"

It is something we hear a lot. Some states have decided it is perfectly legal, (props, Iowa) while others saw special interests spend billions to ban it. (See also: Mormons in California.)

Lost in the hubbub over which states allow and which don't is the role of the United States government. The Supreme Court has ruled that the right to marry is fundamental and cannot be prohibited by any means other than a constitutional amendment.

That didn't stop President Clinton from signing into law -- quietly, during his reelection campaign -- one of the most wretched and discriminatory pieces of legislation Congress ever crafted: The Defense of Marriage Act.

According to this Act, states are free to ignore valid marriages between people in another state. So, a gay couple legally married in Iowa who moves to Missouri can be told they aren't married there. Also, it defines marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman for federal purposes. So the legally married couple in Iowa can't file a Federal income tax return as "Married." As far as the United States is concerned, these people are roommates. This happened in Florida with older hetero citizens who wanted to get domestic partnership and were told this would not be counted.

The Defense of Marriage Act is a full-on head butt to the Full Faith and Credit clause of the U.S. Constitution, to wit: states must respect "public acts, records, and judicial proceedings" of other states. See the problem, America?

A state that recognizes same-sex marriage is entitled to have its "public act, record, and judicial proceeding" (marriage is arguably all three) respected by all the other states. Except in the case of marriage, when The Act sticks its nose in and says, "It's fine, Other States. The Full Faith and Credit Clause doesn't apply here, because...uh...you see...Congress and Bill Clinton said so!"

We may be close to an answer. Massachusetts AG Martha Coakley filed suit this month against the United States, pointing out that the Defense of Marriage Act runs afoul of the Constitution. Sure there have been many suits before this one -- not amounting to anything -- but Mass. is uniquely positioned since it's one of a handful that has same-sex marriage on the books. The issue is Constitutional -- not a states' rights one.

Neat.

Surrounded by the deafening silence of an unsupportive White House (President O doesn't support SSM on religious grounds), we are still likely years from knowing how the Massachusetts' suit will end up. But we should be encouraged that the conversation seems to be starting in an intellectually honest manner.

Brutally.

For more details like this (and subjects along these lines) visit www.Laermer.com

Follow Richard Laermer on Twitter: www.twitter.com/laermer

Comments

[larry278]

Face it. A great many heterosexuals are incapable of thinking straight. Check out Crister heterosexual homophobic rants. Millitant homosexuals take pride in not thinking straight. Why can't Christer, fundie, neo-con, people who profess to be saved, heterosexuals even try to think straight once in a while? Reading Revalition repeatedly in the NT sometimes leads to a temporary disorientation similar to the feeling you get when shooting up a speed ball or during a LSD flash back. But Christers always have avoided the recreational use of drugs. I'll be damned if I have a clue to the strange conduct of fundie, neo-con, Christers in the GOP

[1murillo]

Marriage laws and concealed gun laws are two completely different issues, treated under different areas of the Consitution.

[PlaceboStudman]

Why, is the question though? A legal contract is a legal contract, whether it be for a gun, a fishing pole, or a marriage, they are all the same, and if the federal or state government wishes to control one they must be willing and able to control them all equally.

[LintLass]

Because the right to bear arms comes from the premise a 'well regulated militia' is important to *states,* whereas legal contracts between people are guaranteed the full faith and credit of the US Constitution *among* states.

[LintLass]

Also, the legal contracts between people regarding gun ownership are about sales and the like. A state may say you can't *carry* a certain kind of weapon under such and such conditions within its borders: it can't say a sale is invalid cause it's from out of state, or between people its laws don't recognize as 'worthy..' and then not recognize you as the lawful owner of the item.

[CelticMajic]

I know where the RTBA is, but where is that SSM ammendment?

[PlaceboStudman]

As is pointed out by several commenters already, this issue really boils down to whether The Constitution applies to all Americans, or just some priveledged Americans who believe they have earned rights that others haven't. If SCOTUS has labelled marriage a fundamental right, then it is a fundamental right for everyone. If the government intends to honor the contracts of one state, as far as marriage, C&C, fishing, driver's licenses, etc, then, yes, it must respect them all, as per the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

But, apparently, SCOTUS, in its infinite wisdom has decided that the laws and principles of the constitution DO only apply to certain priveledged few. Ask African Americans and women about that. If we truly believed that the constitution applied to any and all Americans, we wouldn't have neeeded the American's With Disabilities Act, either.

We must work to rectify these failings of humanity and give ALL Americans the full set of rights and priveledges that every other American possesses, and, yes, that extends to allowing gays to marry the man or woman of their dreams

[AmericaM]

The bottom line is that we all have a fundemantal right to marry anyone we want. Look, I'm straight, but gay people aren't gay as a hobbie or only on weekends......they are gay because that's who they are so they are people just like you and me.....now tell me why their rights are any different from mine or anyone else's.

This country lets death row inmates who have committed horrific crimes get married and even have conjugal visits on occasion, but we don't let perfectly good human beings who happen to be gay get married !!! I'm sorry, but there's nothing you can say that will change my opinion on this.

[SouthJerseySteve]

Finally, a voice of reason! Thank you my friend.

[JC1c1]

Not to mention that the state also allows underage teens to marry one another or an adult as well. A 16 year old can get married to whomever they want. But two consenting adults cant? This just amazes me.

I too am a straight person, and I see no reason why two gay people cant get married. I dont understand DADT. These to me are fundamental rights. People shouldnt have to deny what they are. I cant imagine what Christian people would say if they were told that if they joined the military that if they said they were Christians they would be kicked out of the military. That they would have to deny their religion, a part of who they are. Religion, gender, race, and sexual orientation are some of the things that make a person. To be told to deny any of these are just wrong.

As long as consenting adults love one another, what right do I have to tell them they can not marry.

To the gay community, I know it wont be soon enough but do know that you have time on your side. Most young people in this country could care less about sexual orientation. It is not a huge issue with us. You are what you, and shouldnt have to deny it, or hide it. You should be able to marry and divorce anyone you choose.

[SonnyDee]

I'd never thought about the fact that death row inmates can get married in relation to this. Thanks for the ammo.

Signed,
Another Heterosexual supporter of Homo's :D

[CelticMajic]

Oh, you mean like the states should respect the conceal carry laws of other states?

[cminca]

Sure, as soon as you prove that SSM can prove deadly to a third party.

[Aaror]

Yes, and citizens who go to another state must abide by the laws of the state they are in on where they can concealed carry a weapon. Of course, some states don't want people carrying a concealed weapon near schools, banks, etc, so you have to obey their laws. You still have the right to carry concealed within the laws of the area you are in, but the area that you can legally concealed carry may be no where in the state...

[LintLass]

It's not the same. Things like state concealed carry laws are more like traffic laws. Just cause you come from a state that, say, allows you to turn right on red, (I think they all do, now) doesn't mean you can go into a state where it is not and claim it has to be legal everywhere.

If somehow a state had a law that said, say, 'Women can't carry firearms,' thus refused to license them, then (well, not only would it clearly be Unconstitutional in the first place, but,) the Full Faith and Credit clause would apply as regards out of state FID cards held by women. If that woman came from a state where it was OK to discharge a firearm within two hundred feet of a dwelling, that wouldn't make it OK to do so if it was not legal to do so in that state. Get it?

Kind of like helmet laws, just cause you rode from a state which has none doesn't mean you can break state highway laws next door. Those are in fact state matters.

[LintLass]

(And, yes, this means that anti-gay GOPers who support this end-run around *actual* states' rights while using a false idea of 'state's rights' to violate Full Faith and Credit are being total hypocrites. Big surprise.)

[truthartbeauty]

what a shame Obama turned out to be just another politician who could give good speeches.

[TomSJ]

I need to start this by apologizing to all those straight allies out there (if there are any), because I don’t trust you. Not one. Bill Clinton, much eulogized by the dems, did gay people more harm than nearly any president I can recall. All the rest of them ignored us. Bill focused on us…ineptly. He bought us the "Defense of Marriage Act" and "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell". Thank you, Mr. President. And what has Mr. Obama done for us so far. Exactly nothing. He’s said he’s given some number of federal workers some spousal rights. He hasn’t. They had those rights already. What he has done is produce a vigorous defense of DOMA that compared gay men and women to adulterers. Thank you, Mr. President.

I voted for Obama on a hope and a dream, like I’ve always vote for democrats. And, like always, they’ve disappointed me. If I had it to do again, who would I vote for? I don’t think that I would vote at all. I couldn’t in good conscscience vote for McCain, but I couldn’t in good conscscience vote for Obama either.

Sorry, guys. I don’t trust any of you, and that includes Barney Frank. I guess I’m out of the voting public for the moment. Pity.

[Nommo]

Clinton wasn't much of a friend to Black citizens either. The prison population exploded and welfare reform devastated lots of people and communities (That ain't just about Black folks either.)

[SJBrown]

You have over three years to decide what is important to you, understand the rules of the game (like Congress makes laws) and then get back in and fight to win.

BTW, President Clinton was a naive as you appear to be. He didn't understand the game or the rules until he lost. Actually, Clinton used the E.O. to make a lot of progress in government. He took a risk, and he lost. If you think he was or the President Obama is the enemy you need three years to learn about politics and where the power is on these issues.

[FearlessFreep]

Bushwa! "The rules of the game" don't prevent the President from taking the lead on an issue. All Congress knows that while Obama may formally support undoing DOMA, he doesn't take the issue seriously enough to spend any political capital on it. And they're likely to vote accordingly.

[FearlessFreep]

"Obama doesn't support same-sex marriage on religious grounds." Yeah, right. Anyone see that he abandoned his earlier "unequivocal" support because he was afraid of losing votes as a presidential candidate. Politicians who use a religious rationale to jusify their sellouts are contemptible.

BTW, you could have voted for Ralph Nader.

[MrWampler]

> Bill Clinton, much eulogized by the dems, did gay people more harm than nearly any president I can recall. All the rest of them ignored us.

Yeah, I guess you're right. Bush, particularly Rove, COMPLETELY ignored us during that entire administration.

/snark

[whippetlvr]

Vote green! There are other parties you know and discriminating against heteros won't help anything.

DOMA is unconstitutional because it promotes religious values as state values. Freedom of religion is also freedom from religion. I have the right to be agnostic, and even religious people have the right in our country to have their own interpretation of the religions that seek to hate in the name of God.

I wish separation of church and state were brought up every time this issue comes up. What's next, do we force people to circumcise their children or prevent them from it? Outlaw eating meat on Fridays? Why can't they pick the things in religion that actually make sense, like 'love thy neighbor' or 'love thy enemy' or 'turn the other cheek'

Unfortunately hate is apparently a family value.....

[PhilipB]

Hi!
You know, after all the back and forth in the comments, what can I really say than to talk about me and my family?
I mean, ultimately, that is where it goes...
My family. My Gay family.
And we are discriminated by law! THAT should give everyone pause, but the reality of this discrimination causes my family real harm. Not some "lets pretend" harm or something abstract.
There is nothing "abstract" about in-equality when you LIVE IT!
I also reject the notion that somehow I must be less gay to have equality. I am Gay! OK! GAY! Homosexual or whatever label you wish to define me as a way to diminish my real in-equality, I am gay and have a family, and my family is discriminated against by law, state law, federal law.
I reject any notion that this is acceptable as we are GOOD PEOPLE, and we are CITIZENS of this country, and this whole situation of discrimination is wrong. I know it, and any fair minded person knows it.
I stand for the repeal of DOMA and DADT.

I stand up for my family, as anyone would.
I have had enough of this nonsense and hate and I am standing up for my families rights!

[DubiousVoter]

I will stand by your side! Together we will make a better future, if not for ourselves, then for those who follow.

[bymyinitials]

My partner and I have been in a committed partnership for over 20years, but apparently we are a threat to all those marriages that are "perfect" because we are gay. We have never had an affair with anyone else or flew to another country to see another person behind the other's back or even tried to pick up someone in a bathroom, so I guess we aren't worthy to be recognized as a couple. Despite what others may think, we have lived a moral, loving and generous life. We have tried not to judge others, because we live in a glass house too, but in America it appears that if you're straight the laws will protect you and your union no matter what you do to disgrace your wife and or husband not to mention your family. Remember one thing holds true that in America we all have to "right" to pursue happiness, so get over it and get on with the business of helping the poor, homeless and starving people of our great nation and leave your personal feelings at the door. In the 70's most young people said marriage was just a piece of paper, now they have grown up and are trying to tell everyone else what marriage SHOULD be, I find that amazing.

[Aaror]

Here is why gay marriage threatens the marriage of homophobic men in the US:
Homophobic men are gay men who think their sexuality is wrong. They don't enjoy sex with their wives, the imagine a man in order to be physically capable of sex with their wives. If the public sanctions against homosexuality were lifted, these men are afraid they would have too much temptation to ditch their families for a man.
They assume everyone has the same latent desires they do, which is why they talk and act the way they do. In their world, sex with men is a horifyingly appealing idea that has to be stamped out or everyone would do it. They don't realize that straight men, who don't care about this issue, will keep the species going without them.

[bymyinitials]

Had never thought about this issue in the way you described, but it really gave me food for through! I must admitt I think you are on to something...thanks

[Talossa]

Now we get to see if the majority of "strict constructionists" on the SCOTUS actually believe in a literal interpretation of the full faith and credit clause. Anyone want to bet that we don't see a little "judicial activism" from the "strict constructionist" right wingers? Pathetic.

[Romulus]

What do you believe IS the literal intepretation of full faith and credit?

[PlaceboStudman]

The literal interpretation of the full faith and credit clause is that any and all state contracts and paperwork must be honored by other states. Yes, that means that one state must respect the C&C laws of other states, the same way they respect the marriage licenses and driver's licenses of other states. The idea that any aspect of the Constitution of the United States applies to some Americans or some policies of Americans, and not others is laughable, and shameful.

Frankly, if there aren't some national standards for contracts such as marriage, drivers, fishing, firearms licenses, then we might as well not HAVE a federal government, because each state could then make their own rules, and the whole idea of interstate commerce would become irrelevant

[Gonzaloo]

"The Defense of Marriage Act---as far as the United States is concerned, these people are roommates. "

Thank you Martha and good luck. This hurddle will be crossed in time.

[hardcorelib]

Can we ever just grow up as a nation? I mean here we are in 2009 with a significant minorty of UNITED STATES CITIZENS being actively discriminated against. I am 52 years old, gay and a proud EX MORMON, who is sick and tired of being sick and tired. My husband and I have been "married" for 30 years and have the best marriage of any of our friends both straight and gay - and yet - here we are still waiting for BASIC human rights. We are tired of waiting for people to be "Comfortable" with gay people so that they can have their human rights voted upon. We are making plans to leave the country in the next few years if nothing changes. Obama has not exactly been a "fierce advocate" for us as promised pre-election.

[bookworm1]

Before Loving v. Virginia, did the federal government accept the validity of mixed-race marriages in states that allowed such marriages?

Serious question. Any law historians out there?

[JackNasty]

Yes, it did.

[LintLass]

Yep: in fact, in the nineteen-teens, when Massachusetts stopped discriminating in marriage against interracial couples, some felt the need to pass a state law saying that interracial couples who couldn't be legally-married in their own state couldn't come to Massachusetts to do so. Mitt Romney, as Governor of Massachusetts had someone dig up that obsolete law, not mention the overt racial references in half of it, and had the state enforce it against same-sex couples.

The reason for this is because otherwise, the Full Faith and Credit Clause would mean that then, as in like 1914, people from other states could be married in MA and then have standing in civil rights cases elsewhere.

[onepotatotwopotato]

The United States Senate on Wednesday refused to extend state to state reciprocity to holders of state issued concealed carry licenses, a possible precursor to state to state recognition of SSM.
My state, FLorida, does not recognize Mass. SSM and Mass. does not recognize my Florida CCW.

[NoOneSpecial]

I'll see your Florida CCW and raise you a Washington State fishing license.

It's outrageous and un-Constitutional that my fishing license purchased here isn't legal or valid in other states. It's a violation of the Full Faith and Credit clause!

And come to think of it, fishing licenses are after all just as comparable to CCW permits and marriage licenses.

It's all a big conspiracy to deny me my rights!

(/sarcasm off)

[FreshwaterDrum]

Your WA fishing license is, indeed, still valid in FL. Even if you're in Florida, your license still allows you to fish in Washington, just as it always did.

[Talossa]

I don't see the comparison between gay couples just wanting to live a normal life, and gun-totin' terrorists.

[onepotatotwopotato]

Why would you call citizens who exercise our Constitutional right to keep and bear arms "terrorists"? Are citizens who exercise their right to freedom of speech or freedom of the press or freedom of religion "terrorist" as well?

[gbloodgood]

1) Why is marriage, which is a religious institution, considered a fundamental right?
2) If it is not religious but civil, why is it denied to same sex couples?
3) How is it that straights believe they are morally superior?
a) If you are straight, when did you "decide" to be straight?
b) If you didn't have to "decide" to be straight, how can being heterosexual be morally superior?

Just a few questions I think about when I think of this whole issue

[SD Indy]

*crickets*

[SJBrown]

Why, because it's tied to procreation; man's existence. It isn't tied to sexual orientation - Straight or Gay.

Am I going to debate whether that's right or not? No.

BTW, that's If the question is why does the Supreme Court consider it to be a fundamental right.

[NoOneSpecial]

You have to be married in order to procreate?

[mydwyf]

You might be surprised by some of that 'antiquated science fiction fantasy mythology.'
Try reading Octavia Butler's works. Grok the character 'Nikanj'.