Sad day in USA for both Parties (Page 6)

I don't know how they did either but those laws were 100 years old. And they weren't overturned by SCOTUS - the people decided to remove the laws themselves.  SCOTUS overturned the laws in 1967 but the unenforceable laws weren't removed until the last 6-8 years.

I predict that the laws and amendments will be removed by the public, not by SCOTUS. Just a matter of time.

Yeah, I need to work as well. I need to think about this, because mostly I just don't get it, but that could have everything to do with my lack of education in this area. But it just doesn't ring true to me.

Don, I do appreciate the discussion. Check back with ya after work ...

Ok, I'm going to toss in my insight, even though it rarely gets read, and never responded too.

 First, I always get a good chuckle that our founding fathers founded this country on Christian principles. Why would they then make the very first amendment the freedom of religion and the banning of establishing a state religion? Most of our founding fathers were not religious men. They were humanist by action and philosophy "Freedom of the human will". So the whole arguement that the intention of the constitution was to follow the Christian doctrine is a little difficult for me to believe and in my opinion a little self-serving by the Christian community.

Second, holy marraige is a religious idea. I don't understand how a holy religious ritual gets mixed up with federal or state law. I can't figure out how we can make laws that define what is a holy marraige and only allowing citizens who partake in a religously defined ritual certain legal right.

Third, I don't understand why two consenting adults can't enter in a legally binding contract to form a single "legal" entity in the eyes of the law. I've entered multiple business partnerships on my own free will to acheive certain goals in my business life. I can't see why two people can't do the same thing to acheive their shared goals in their personal life. I don't see what this has to with someones religious beliefs. To me it is two seperate issues.  

Jackemy, I'll respond :

You're a genius!  

So it's more important for a man to be able to stick his weewee in a woman's hoohoo than for two people to be in a loving, committed relationship?

You've also stated that same-sex marriage cheapens/threatens your marriage.  How?

Shouldn't your marriage be valued/strengthened based on the relationship you have with your spouse, than by who else is allowed to say they are married?

Chris, you have such a way with words...

but you misspelled ouioui.

John, I say it is disputed in the same way anti-abortion advocates say abortion laws are disputed. However, SCOTUS says it's the settled law of the land.

In my view, until SCOTUS rules on the constitutionality of DOMA then it remains to be seen whether it's constitutional. It is disputed by constitutional scholars (a quick google will provide a plethora of opinions) but it's not settled until SCOTUS says it's settled.

I appreciate your opinion that DOMA doesn't violate FF&CC but other scholars disagree with you. So, you have your professional opinion, I have my layperson's opinion, other's have their constitutional scholarly opinions, but it's not settled law until SCOTUS says so. It's just a matter of time until this issue comes before SCOTUS. This fight has only just begun.

All of this talk of SCOTUS and DOMA and FF&CC turns people off; most people, like myself, have only cursory understanding of law. We seem to collectively make our arguments for rights by creating constitutional arguments; we seem to have this singular model for acquiring civil rights where our hopes rest on SCOTUS. I say we need to find another model.

We know in our gut what is right and fair. We know that same-gendered marriages will happen when people start changing their hearts. I'm not banking on SCOTUS to confer rights. I'm banking on a sense of fair-play on the part of the public which will result in the expansion of rights. And that is only a matter of time.

One final edit (really!): Prohibition was self-imposed in this country. SCOTUS did not overturn Prohibition. The people overturned it but it took 24 years.

I meant another model for how we resolve this issue. Much of what we do in the US is to take our disputes to the courts - ultimately, the SCOTUS - and make an argument that the Constitution is being violated in our case.

I'm saying use a different model that appealing to SCOTUS. Use a new approach - make changes locally. Change hearts locally. SCOTUS didn't save us from Prohibition; the better senses of the public did. It took a long while, but the tide eventually turned.

I need to mark this day in my diary... I think that's twice this year!

Don, can you clearify what you mean as "actualizes the union"  as opposed to "instrumental"? Is there an actual act that is different.  And is a marriage between a man and a women less of a marriage if sex is not involved?

Good question and brings up a good point about the differences in church-sponsored marriages and civil marriages.

You have to get a marriage license from the state to get married. If you don't have a license, then the state doesn't recognize you as married even if you have a religious wedding ceremony. In fact, you can even apply for a license, have a religious wedding ceremony but if you don't get the required signatures on the license and turn the license in for processing, then you're still not considered married. At least, that's the way it works in Florida.

Nobody is telling any religious institution what to do about the ceremonies they perform or marriages they recognize (or not).

I was wondering about common law, too, but forgot to bring it up. Since Don's argument against same-sex marriage is that states shouldn't sponsor or condone "non-natural" bonds, common law partnerships are an example of the state doing just that.