Canada leaders accept gay marriage ruling
- Thread starter Natoma
- Start date
There is NO concept of full faith and credit for other countries' laws, except by treaty. That only works with the states.
Yea we have that in our constitution, which the DOMA circumvents. That's how, eventually, DOMA will be defeated. So if one state recognizes gay marriage, the other states do not have to recognize that marriage. Of course that is unconstitutional. I'm surprised no one has filed a legal challenge on that basis alone. But I digress.
I'm not sure what you mean by the "except by treaty" part though.
I tell you, I almost jumped out of my seat when reading the news. I'm so happy.
I'm not sure what you mean by the "except by treaty" part though.
I tell you, I almost jumped out of my seat when reading the news. I'm so happy.
Ooops, I meant to say "there is NO full faith". That way except by treaty makes more sense.
Essentially, there's no constitutional requirement that the US respect the laws of other nations inside the boundaries of the US, except by treaty.
I also think that full faith and credit falls apart if you have explicit laws outlawing something in one state, and explicite laws legalizing it in another.
Essentially, there's no constitutional requirement that the US respect the laws of other nations inside the boundaries of the US, except by treaty.
I also think that full faith and credit falls apart if you have explicit laws outlawing something in one state, and explicite laws legalizing it in another.
Vince said:Natoma said:I tell you, I almost jumped out of my seat when reading the news. I'm so happy.
Well, congradualtions buddy. Hey, on the plus side if you were to live in Canada you'd have more people who agree with your thinking
Pfft. But I don't like canada. Too many canucks for my taste, and far too much 'eh hoser' for me.
But the good folks up north do serve their purposes from time to time. I guess my idea that we should pre-empt the canadians and make them the 51st state of the union was a bad idea.
RussSchultz said:
I think you did it again. "US respect the laws of other nations inside the boundaries of the US, except by treaty."
A nation inside the boundaries of the US?
The thing is, there were no laws outlawing gay marriage until Hawaii and Vermont began passing legislation to allow gay marriage. Well, gay marriage at first. Then gay civil unions with the same rights as marriage (it's all in the technicalities of the terms with some people i guess. "please define what the meaning of 'is' is," and whatnot).
Once that happened, DOMA was passed in 1996 which stated that no state need to recognize a marriage performed in another state which recognizes the legal status of a gay couple.
But anyways, this makes me very very happy. I'm so... Ha-Peeeeee!!! Don't you just miss ren & stimpy?
Interesting. According to 365gay.com Canada is the third country to legalize gay marriages. Reading that I thought that Norway and Denmark might be the first two, but according to them it was The Netherlands and Belgium. I was almost sure that gay marriages were legal in Norway to so I searched around a bit and found this
...oh, and good job Canada!
Edit: Looking around a bit on some other sites I get the impression that gay marriages has actually been legal for some while in Canada...? Is this just that they can now get church weddings there, and they couldn't before? I didn’t consider that possibility. For me church weddings are not very important, but I guess it can be for others... or is it something else that has changed? Too many questions... gotta read more...
Edit 2: ok, I found the answer to one of my questions. In Norway gay couples can wed in churches (it would be quite absurd if they could not) but legally it's considered a "Registered Partnerships" rather than a marriage)... looks like I should have looked around a bit more before making my initial post...
Sorry for all the addendums, but… There is a lot of countries that let gay couples marry, but they always call it something else than marriage. Now Canada is the third country to actually call a gay marriage a real marriage? Is that right? Sorry if I’m a bit slow, but I’ve never really thought about this before, so I’m a bit confused by everything I’ve found so far...
So, gay couples enter legal partnerships but can't get a church wedding or adopt. One might totally disagree with the second point (adoption) but I can understand why it is so. But I don't get the "no church wedding" part. If a church is willing to wed a gay couple then why not? Many couples choose to not get wed in a church, but that choice should be up to the couple and nobody else. Does the law really say "they can wed but it can't be in a church". I really don't get it, but now I'll have to dig deeper to find out why... maybe some of the other Norwegians on this board can enlighten me...cbsnews said:
...oh, and good job Canada!
Edit: Looking around a bit on some other sites I get the impression that gay marriages has actually been legal for some while in Canada...? Is this just that they can now get church weddings there, and they couldn't before? I didn’t consider that possibility. For me church weddings are not very important, but I guess it can be for others... or is it something else that has changed? Too many questions... gotta read more...
Edit 2: ok, I found the answer to one of my questions. In Norway gay couples can wed in churches (it would be quite absurd if they could not) but legally it's considered a "Registered Partnerships" rather than a marriage)... looks like I should have looked around a bit more before making my initial post...
Sorry for all the addendums, but… There is a lot of countries that let gay couples marry, but they always call it something else than marriage. Now Canada is the third country to actually call a gay marriage a real marriage? Is that right? Sorry if I’m a bit slow, but I’ve never really thought about this before, so I’m a bit confused by everything I’ve found so far...
SirXcalibur
Newcomer
No real church would marry a gay couple. Its totally against biblical teachings. So its very wrong for any church to do that. God loves gay people the same as everyone else but the act is still wrong.
I personally think it is very wrong and not natural.
But on the other hand I know gay people and have some gay friends and their relations aren't really any different then hetro relationships.
Its still not right though.
I personally think it is very wrong and not natural.
But on the other hand I know gay people and have some gay friends and their relations aren't really any different then hetro relationships.
Its still not right though.
SirXcalibur said:
Depends on your beliefs and your particular church. There were people that used to believe that no real church would marry an interracial couple.
There were also people that personally thought it was wrong and certainly not natural. Anti-Miscegenation laws. Look them up some time.
p.s.: I'm glad you know have gay friends and know some who are in relationships, and can see that those relationships are no different than heterosexual relationships. That's the first step to realizing the truth.
SirX: Once the damage is done psychologically, there's nothing you can do about it. Live and let live, I guess. (and this is coming from myself, a conservative young straight white man) As long as the folks keep their sexuality to themselves, it's fine IMO.
I do agree that this could pose problems, though.. and is bad for our morale. How long will it be before marriage benefits get abused? For example, if I lived in Canada I could "marry" my best friend and we'd both get tax benefits but could live completely heterosexual lifestyles at the same time. See? It might open the door for more corruption in the system.. or are there ways of stopping this type of thing?
I do agree that this could pose problems, though.. and is bad for our morale. How long will it be before marriage benefits get abused? For example, if I lived in Canada I could "marry" my best friend and we'd both get tax benefits but could live completely heterosexual lifestyles at the same time.
See? It might open the door for more corruption in the system.. or are there ways of stopping this type of thing?Blade said:
Not sure whom you're referring to when you say "folks," considering that heterosexual couples display their sexuality and their relationship status all the time, freely. Holding hands in the streets, kissing, walking arm in arm, yadda yadda yadda.
So if you're only referring to homosexuality, then your "live and let live" statement isn't truly "live and let live" then.
Blade said:I do agree that this could pose problems, though.. and is bad for our morale. How long will it be before marriage benefits get abused? For example, if I lived in Canada I could "marry" my best friend and we'd both get tax benefits but could live completely heterosexual lifestyles at the same time.
1) How could this be bad for morale in any way shape or form?
2) Come on now. Any system is open for abuse. You don't think people get married today for the benefits of the system? Ever hear of legalization of citizenship by marriage? Or people marrying for money? Anna Nicole-Smith anyone?
Corruption of the marriage system already exists.
People still accept heterosexual marriage by at face value. That people are getting married because they love one another.
It's bad for morale because it'll be fully embracing something that is inherently "off-kilter".. which isn't really a crazy concept.
"Keeping it to themselves" refers to the people such as closet homosexuals that sexually assault and thus sexually confuse young boys/girls (some of which who become homosexuals) and such, but it applies to heterosexuals as well.
Trust me, Natoma.. I'm not one to commit a hate crime.. and I'm not one to say "I'm sorry, you can't marry" but I can't lie to you and say that I think homosexuality is right. It's not right (in my book) so my opinion is obviously going to be skewed that way.
You are right though, corruption of the system already exists. It could get a lot worse with legalized gay marriage, though.
"Keeping it to themselves" refers to the people such as closet homosexuals that sexually assault and thus sexually confuse young boys/girls (some of which who become homosexuals) and such, but it applies to heterosexuals as well.
Trust me, Natoma.. I'm not one to commit a hate crime.. and I'm not one to say "I'm sorry, you can't marry" but I can't lie to you and say that I think homosexuality is right. It's not right (in my book) so my opinion is obviously going to be skewed that way.
You are right though, corruption of the system already exists. It could get a lot worse with legalized gay marriage, though.
Blade said:
Well, to give you examples of the idea of morale dropping, here's something you may not have considered. A while ago, women in the military were seen as a concept that would drop the levels of morale in the troops, because the men and women would be fraternizing with one another in the barracks. The men would lose their fighting spirit, and it would be a disaster.
That didn't happen.
A while ago, men of color in the military serving with their white compatriots was seen as a concept that would drop the levels of morale in the troops, because no one would be able to stand serving with a colored person. It would be a disaster.
That didn't happen.
A while ago, it was deemed unnatural and illegal for people of two different "races" to intermarry. It was ungodly, and it would mark the downfall of humanity as a species and bring about god's wrath upon the world.
That didn't happen.
So you see, while I understand where you are coming from with regard to you feelings on the morale bit, I hope you can understand that this feeling is steeped in history, and has been shown to be very very overblown.
We look at women in the military, interracial couples, etc etc etc, as anachronisms in today's environment. Most people don't give it a second thought. Sure there are people that are disgusted by those notions, but they generally, I hope, do not comprise the majority of the american public sentiment.
That could not be said at certain points in history.
Blade said:
Blade, *people*, be they homosexual or heterosexual, man or woman, of any religion, "race", creed, yadda yadda yadda, who sexually assault and thus sexually confuse/rape/scar/destroy young boys/girls should be put in jail.
Hell, anyone who sexually assaults another human being, be they young or old, should be put in jail. This is not something that is exclusive to homosexuality. It is a human condition. Not a homosexual condition.
Blade said:
I think you are perfectly entitled to your opinion. But you should also know that there are people who would say the same thing to you if you married a girl who was not of the same race as you, or even dated one. You do realize that there are places that still outlaw interracial dating right? Look up Bob Jones University.
It may not be comfortable for you to look at the situation like that, but it would be truthful.
Blade said:
50% of all marriages in this country end in divorce Blade. You'd think that people would be all for people who are *truly* committed to one another being able to marry.
My partner and I are domestic partners. We've been together for 2 1/2 years. November 28th is our 3 year anniversary. We've lived together for 2 of the 2 1/2 years in our own apartment. We are *very* dedicated to one another. Yet we cannot marry. Our relationship is probably better than many of the heterosexual marriages that exist today. So if anything, we should be allowed to marry, and those who are in marriage for reasons other than love and committment to one another should be barred, wouldn't you think?
We've had this discussion before, its kinda more of the same.
I dont care frankly, but I do object to the marital status in so far as it provides monetary incentive. As far as social morals go, I have no problem with it, I don't see a logical problem. Morals are by and large seen to be subjective scientifically (more on this later).
If a church wants to marry a homosexual couple, good for them. Moreover, adoption etc etc again no problem so long as there is no evidence for harm to the kid (and I don't think there is, much as the christian conservative like to postulate otherwise).
Frankly, monetary or other incentive for marriage (eg greencards) needs to be done away with. It should strictly be a social contract, with no government intervention. However if it stays the same, then it does indeed open a can of worms if you allow homosexuals to benefit from the same protection. Why can't I marry my dog, or have 3 wives with cumulative benefits, what about marrying a dead person or an 13year old.
Morally, its still subjective, so where does one draw the line.
I dont care frankly, but I do object to the marital status in so far as it provides monetary incentive. As far as social morals go, I have no problem with it, I don't see a logical problem. Morals are by and large seen to be subjective scientifically (more on this later).
If a church wants to marry a homosexual couple, good for them. Moreover, adoption etc etc again no problem so long as there is no evidence for harm to the kid (and I don't think there is, much as the christian conservative like to postulate otherwise).
Frankly, monetary or other incentive for marriage (eg greencards) needs to be done away with. It should strictly be a social contract, with no government intervention. However if it stays the same, then it does indeed open a can of worms if you allow homosexuals to benefit from the same protection. Why can't I marry my dog, or have 3 wives with cumulative benefits, what about marrying a dead person or an 13year old.
Morally, its still subjective, so where does one draw the line.
Fred,
Despite the flaws in the institution of marriage, most people still get married because they love one another and want to spend the rest of their lives together.
As for the last little bits.
1) Dogs? Come on now. They used the beastiality argument back during the Jim Crow days to disparage interracial marriages. I know you're playing devil's advocate, but the argument can be used to disparage anything.
2) Some societies allow polygamy. Hell the mormons up until a few years ago did too. I frankly have no comment on the subject. But there are definitive issues with marrying multiple wives. Such as who gets alimony, child support, or whatever in case of death. Not to mention the tax loopholes it'd create. Head of household in one household. Head of household in another. Yadda yadda yadda.
3) Marrying a dead person? People have done it actually. Moreso because no one caught it. But that has existed before homosexual marriages, so it can't be used in this case.
4) In some states you can get married as young as 15. So again, it depends on where you live.
But this is neither here nor there. You believe as well as I do that two people who are recognized as consenting adults should be able to spend their lives together in a mutually exclusive relationship if they wish, with all the rights, protections, and blessings of society and government upon them.
Everyone should have that right to happiness.
Natoma said:
Despite the flaws in the institution of marriage, most people still get married because they love one another and want to spend the rest of their lives together.
As for the last little bits.
1) Dogs? Come on now. They used the beastiality argument back during the Jim Crow days to disparage interracial marriages. I know you're playing devil's advocate, but the argument can be used to disparage anything.
2) Some societies allow polygamy. Hell the mormons up until a few years ago did too. I frankly have no comment on the subject. But there are definitive issues with marrying multiple wives. Such as who gets alimony, child support, or whatever in case of death. Not to mention the tax loopholes it'd create. Head of household in one household. Head of household in another. Yadda yadda yadda.
3) Marrying a dead person? People have done it actually. Moreso because no one caught it. But that has existed before homosexual marriages, so it can't be used in this case.
4) In some states you can get married as young as 15. So again, it depends on where you live.
But this is neither here nor there. You believe as well as I do that two people who are recognized as consenting adults should be able to spend their lives together in a mutually exclusive relationship if they wish, with all the rights, protections, and blessings of society and government upon them.
Everyone should have that right to happiness.
Joe DeFuria
Legend
Natoma said:
I vote for separation of church and state. Marriage is a legal contract like any other contract between two people who enter into a long term committment. That contract is officially recognized by some government laws and granted special status (as far as taxes, trusts, estate, health care plans, etc)
When any two people decide to enter into such a contract, and the government refuses them the freedom to do so, the result is discrimination.
Personally, as a libertarian, the idea that the government can tell two people who want to enter consensually into a legal contract that they cannot do so is objectionable. There is no basis for it, and most of the justifications for doing so are on religious grounds which IMHO, are not viable.
I am married to a Chinese woman, and our child will be mixed. Just a century ago, this would have subjected my family to intense discrimination by peers. Racial mixing was taboo. Now it's not.
I hope a century from now, people will have gotten over their obsession with gender and people's private behavior between consensual adults. After all, we will be dealing with issues then like whether to recognize marriage between a human and an AI or to recognize an AI as having rights at all.
When any two people decide to enter into such a contract, and the government refuses them the freedom to do so, the result is discrimination.
Personally, as a libertarian, the idea that the government can tell two people who want to enter consensually into a legal contract that they cannot do so is objectionable. There is no basis for it, and most of the justifications for doing so are on religious grounds which IMHO, are not viable.
I am married to a Chinese woman, and our child will be mixed. Just a century ago, this would have subjected my family to intense discrimination by peers. Racial mixing was taboo. Now it's not.
I hope a century from now, people will have gotten over their obsession with gender and people's private behavior between consensual adults. After all, we will be dealing with issues then like whether to recognize marriage between a human and an AI or to recognize an AI as having rights at all.