We hope you enjoy your visit.

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Massachusetts sues the federal gov't.
Topic Started: Jul 8 2009, 01:29 PM (421 Views)
Trav-man Jul 8 2009, 01:29 PM Post #1
Member Avatar
That's Travtastic!
[ * * * * * * * * ]
 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090708/ap_on_re_us/us_gay_marriage

I'm wondering if anybody else has heard about this. It doesn't seem entirely clear to me. One, when and how did the Defense of Marriage Act get passed? I thought that bill pretty much died when Obama took office. Also, does this law actually prevent new states from legalizing same sex marriage? Does it keep states that have already performed same sex marriages from performing new ones? And how does it keep same sex civil unions from having the same legal rights as a marriage? I feel like the article is a little foggy on the details and I'd think that this would be big news.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
tiptopolive Jul 8 2009, 05:50 PM Post #2
Member Avatar
oh my, he's so gangsta
[ * * * * * * * ]
 Interesting... I wonder how this will turn out.

This is an article about why Obama didn't repeal the "Defense of Marriage" act.

More specifics about the provisions of the act are here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_marriage_act
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dave Jul 8 2009, 06:26 PM Post #3
Member
[ * * * * * * * ]
 It seems to me that the bill's fundamental point is that if a gay couple gets married in one state, it is not necessary for other states to honor that, and no federal benefits are provided to the couple. Essentially, it's an anti-gay-marriage law. It doesn't outright ban it but it certainly doesn't support it.

I think that if a state recognizes a marriage, then that marriage should be considered legal everywhere, or at the least receive federal benefits. If federal benefits are restricted to only certain marriages that the state recognizes, then why grant the states rights to allow marriages at all? Bottom line is that it interferes with states' rights.

But either way, I've always agreed with the ideas about gay marriage that Obama campaigned with...allow any two people a civil union (marriage with a different word so bible thumpers don't get angry) with all the legal benefits that come with it such as being able to visit your significant other in a hospital, and leave marriage definitions to the churches. Government shouldn't be defining "marriage" at any level in my opinion.

And Obama isn't going to repeal it yet because it wouldn't be politically advisable to do so. The White House first and foremost should appear to be focusing on the economy, and second of all there probably isn't that large of a demographic within America that would support repealing it. More people are against gay marriage than you'd think. That's why you won't ever hear Obama defend gay marriage itself. He will discuss those civil unions, but will not say that he supports gay marriage. There's still too many people all across the political spectrum that don't believe in redefining the word "marriage."
Edited by Dave, Jul 8 2009, 06:31 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ssp0929 Jul 8 2009, 08:10 PM Post #4
Member Avatar
Member
[ * * * ]
 I, myself, am not a supporter of gay marriage. I'm not against it by any means. But as far as supporting goes. Zilch.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
tiptopolive Jul 8 2009, 09:22 PM Post #5
Member Avatar
oh my, he's so gangsta
[ * * * * * * * ]
Dave
 
I think that if a state recognizes a marriage, then that marriage should be considered legal everywhere, or at the least receive federal benefits.


Article IV Section 1 of the Constitution
 
Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state.

So other states should be forced to recognize gay married (or "civilly unionized") couples from Massachusetts, Iowa, etc. I don't know if they are, though.
Edited by tiptopolive, Jul 8 2009, 09:23 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dave Jul 8 2009, 10:56 PM Post #6
Member
[ * * * * * * * ]
 Under the Defense of Marriage Act, if one state recognizes a marriage, other states are not forced to recognize it.

From Wikipedia:

Quote:
 
No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) needs to treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state.


And that's one of the several reasons there are arguments about the constitutionality of the law.
Edited by Dave, Jul 8 2009, 10:56 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
« Previous Topic · Community Chat · Next Topic »
Add Reply