More marriage for teh ghey

[livius drusus]

It allows states to ignore the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution so they can refuse to recognize marriages that are legal in other states.

[ChuckF]

The President's determination is effective insofar as the DoJ will cease defending DOMA in the 1st and 2nd (?) circuit proceedings challenging the constitutionality of the law. DOMA is still law and is still enforced.

The full effects of DOMA - i.e. its (putative) effects on state recognition of same sex marriage - have never entirely clear, but the main thing is that since it prevents the federal government recognizing same-sex marriages, same-sex couples are excluded from federal statutory provisions that affect or touch married couples.

[Ensign Steve]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Um, is the President's determination of Constitutionality meaningful?

I was thinking the same question, but I think that it is saying that he's telling the DOJ to stop appealing the courts' decisions.

Edit: Fucking new page!

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by livius drusus

It allows states to ignore the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution so they can refuse to recognize marriages that are legal in other states.

Okay, well that clears up my continuous boggle at the ignoring of the FF&C

I am some huge dumbass

[ChuckF]

Well, DOMA doesn't fly completely in the face of the Full Faith & Credit Clause, which provides that "the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof." That's not to say that there isn't a boatload of full faith and credit issues there to be adjudicated, or that it's easy to come up with a reading of DOMA that doesn't run afoul of at least one clause of Article IV, Section 1. DOMA is still an odd little creature.

[erimir]

Whoops. New page! All the stuff I was gonna say was already said.

This is good news though.

It's so weird how the Democrats only decided they wanted our votes after they already lost the election. le sigh

[Anastasia Beaverhausen]

From here:

Obama still is "grappling" with his personal views on whether gays should be allowed to marry

[LadyShea]

If they would only listen to me! It's so fucking simple.

Call all government recognized formal couplings civil unions.

People may choose to call their civil unions marriage (or partnership, or handfast, or ball and chaining or whatever the fuck they want), have marriages performed in church if they want etc. etc. but the states would have nothing to say about that.

No more grappling with personal beliefs and religious definitions. What's the boggle here?

[livius drusus]

The boggle is that people are used to getting married, even in civil ceremonies, and they're going to feel weird about letting that word go.

[LadyShea]

And people can continue to use the word married if they wish. It simply wouldn't be the legal term.

[livius drusus]

That's not going to cut it. People want to be officially married. That's one of the reasons the gay marriage activists are not assuaged by Obama's support for civil unions.

[LadyShea]

Well then everyone is stupid

Srsly I think either everyone is married or nobody is married, in the eyes of the law. Separate but equal doesn't cut it for me either.

That's one of the reasons the gay marriage activists are not assuaged by Obama's support for civil unions.

Well isn't his a separate but equal thing? Like "Marriage is sacred union between male and female and civil unions are for those gays?" I am against it myself.

[Watser?]

What gays here are getting when they get married is exactly what straight couples get. A civil marriage. If they want to they can then get married in church, but legally that means diddly. Some churches will prolly refuse to marry gay couples, but it doesn't make much of a difference.

[Ensign Steve]

Originally Posted by Watser?

What gays here are getting when they get married is exactly what straight couples get. A civil marriage. If they want to they can then get married in church, but legally that means diddly. Some churches will prolly refuse to marry gay couples, but it doesn't make much of a difference.

The other side of that coin is that churches here can and do marry gay couples within their church, so they are married in the eyes of god even if it is not a legal marriage according to the state.

[Watser?]

You wouldn't expect it, but there are even Muslims who do that:

One of the key advocates of Muslim gay marriage is the American Imam, Daayiee Abdullah - who himself is gay. He has performed a number of gay nikahs in America and has also advised gay British Muslim couples on how to perform the ceremony.

He reasons that to deny gay Muslim couples the right to a religious union, goes against teachings in the Koran.

Speaking to 5 live Investigates, he says: "Since Islamic legal precedence does not allow same sexes to wed, Muslim societies make it a legal impossibility within Islam [but] by not allowing same-sex couples to wed, there is a direct attack on the Koran's message that each person has a mate who is their 'comfort and their cloak'."

BBC News - British gay Muslims seek Islamic weddings

[ChuckF]

I knew it. Gay marriage is yet another Muslim conspiracy.

[irukandji]

[BrotherMan]

So, all of the above, then right?

[wildernesse]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No more grappling with personal beliefs and religious definitions. What's the boggle here?

Because if gay marriage is legal, then churches will be required to make their pastors perform gay marriages!! AAAAHHH.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by wildernesse

Because if gay marriage is legal, then churches will be required to make their pastors perform gay marriages!! AAAAHHH.

My comment was in regard to my pretty good idea that the government should stop using the word marriage. A couple wanting to be viewed as official would be issued civil union licenses by the state, and could then solemnize or name that coupling as they wished.

So, if they wanted to be married, they would have a marriage ceremony.

If they are fine with 'civil union", they could just have witnesses sign their license or have a ceremony or whatever.

If they wanted to get handfasted, they could have a handfasting ceremony.

If they wanted to get drunk and call themselves ball-and-chained for life they could do that

And so on.

[wildernesse]

NOOOOOoooooooooo! Some people would still call themselves married and some other people wouldn't like it! And then frogs would come out of the plumbing!! Or protections that everyone has been saying aren't strong enough for years would fail to protect my city in a predictable way!!

What is wrong with you people?! Can't you see what is wrong with this????

[lisarea]

Hmmm, Alan Keyes makes a pretty good point that is causing me to reconsider my position on this issue.

Alan Keyes Equates Gay Marriage To Slavery. Really. | Slog

[JoeP]

The boggle is the apparently large contingent that don't want separate but equal. They want separate and unequal. Just as they want unequal for women, other races, non-citizens, and anyone "not like us". Logic and understanding are not part of the picture, let alone compassion, decency or human rights.

[Ari]

Wow with such a bigoted response, should we start the Alan Keyes Gay bathhouse watch?
Afterall as a Male Republican hating on gays Alan Keyes' likely hood of being gay has greatly increased.

[erimir]

Also, he has a lesbian daughter. (Who he disowned.)

Which suggests he might be carrying gay genes.