"Damn it," says Kenneth Cole in ads all over the fine city of New York. "Why are people not thinking straight about gay marriage?"
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.
For more details like this (and subjects along these lines) visit www.Laermer.com
Follow Richard Laermer on Twitter: www.twitter.com/laermer
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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
Thank you Martha and good luck. This hurddle will be crossed in time.
Serious question. Any law historians out there?
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.
My state, FLorida, does not recognize Mass. SSM and Mass. does not recognize my Florida CCW.
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)
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
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.
Try reading Octavia Butler's works. Grok the character 'Nikanj'.