Prop. 8 & DOMA Predictions.

Each and every one of them enacted with the intent of extending these benefits to married couples, AS THEY WERE DEFINED at the time. Exclusively between a man and a woman. Texas could make marriage to my horse legal tomorrow if it wanted to. That doesnt mean that the federal government would be obligated to provide those benefits to my horse and I.

But you claimed it was intended "to prevent same-sex (gender) marriages being legalized in Hawaii at the time".

NOTHING within DOMA would prevent Hawaii from making gay marriage legal.

 

How is a horse going to provide informed consent to marriage? Marriage is a contract and only informed adults can consent to marriage under contract law.

We know why some bring up absurdities in their arguments and that's because they don't have any valid arguments to present.

 

??? What, some kind of federal definition of marriage you want to impose on Texas? The states are free to define marriage any way they like. Doesnt imply that the federal government must follow through with the tax breaks and entitlements of marriage.

 

Hit the nail on the head. That's why it's pretty useless to debate the issue with numerous members of this forum.

 

You two are ignorant of history AND the effect of DOMA. Shiva claims DOMA was enacted ""to prevent same-sex (gender) marriages being legalized in Hawaii at the time", when in fact, DOMA has no such effect and was not intended to have that effect.

 

dixon, you shouldn't be saying the above. Most of the people debating with you directly about DOMA, apparently aren't ignorant; it is fair to say that you disagree with them on its interpretation.

In any case, it will be interesting to see how the courts rule on the DOMA issue.

 

The States are limited in all of their legislative actions to compliance with the US Constitution so no, the States cannot define marriage in any way that they like. So while the States have expansive powers related to the marriage laws they can only establsh marriage laws that comply with the US Constitution. The Federal government has no authority under the US Constitution to define marriage whatsoever.

As noted the marriage laws all establish a contractual partnership and only those that can enter into a contract under the US Constitution can be a party to a contract. When the US Congress passed laws that referred to marriage it was the financial partnership that these laws address. That has never changed regardless of whether the individuals were of the same race, religion, ethnic background and gender or not. The contract and the financial partnership is identical. The laws address the merged income, financial assets, financial liabilities, and taxes paid by the individuals involved in the contractual partnership established under the marriage law. Prohibitions against same-sex (gender) marriage serve no ligitmate purpose of government because it does not provide for any protections of anyone inalienable Rights which is the primary purpose of our government. It is invidious discrimination based upon religious beliefs that violate the First Amendment's protections against laws based upon theocratic beliefs.

 

Soooo you want to explain how marriage to my horse violates the US Constitution, or do you want to admit you are chasing irrelevant tangents.

 

Shiva doesnt comprehend the function of DOMA. 6 states with gay marriage demonstrates he doesnt have a clue.

 

I never claimed that it had that effect.

What it does do is restrict couples rights, as even if they are married they are denied the same freedoms as heterosexual married couples. Why? Because even though they are married their marriage is not legally recognized if they move to a state where same sex marriage isn't legal.

 

What does your love for barn yard animals have to do with this subject?

Do you realize your horse can't consent?

Funny fact though....bestiality is legal in more states than same sex marriage is.

 

A horse cannot provide informed consent to a contact and marriage is a state defined partnership contract. This is an issue of contract law. The issue of the federal government attempting to define the definition of marriage, which DOMA Section 3 attempted to do, is a matter of Constitutional law as it violates the 10th Amendment.

 

Ah, when you said

You were referring to his irrelevant comments about my horse analogy and not making any statement as to the substance of the debate.

So. Just like if you lived in a state where state law required 18 yrs of age for marriage, and you and your 14 yr old girlfriend had a marriage from another state that permitted such marriages, your state wouldnt be required to recognize the marriage either.

 

Under the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution the marriage of a 14 yo migrating to another state has to be recognized.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article04/

A marriage license is a record issued by the State just like a birth certificate and it must be recognized by all of the other States. This is the foundation for the eventual legal challenge to DOMA Section 2 which allowed States to ignore the marriage certificates issued by other States related to same-sex (gender) marriage and it is unquestionably unconstitutional as Congress does not have the authority to override the US Constitution.

 

Not if Texas made marriage to my horse legal.

Nothing in DOMA would prevent Texas from legalizing marriage to ones horse. Your chasing irrelevant tangents

 

Contract law prohibits Texas from authorizing a marriage between a person and an animal. An animal cannot be a party to a contract. Trying to avoid a serious conversation really degrades any possible argument.

The US Constitution requires the recognition of marriages performed in one state to be recognized in another state.

 

Just making the shiite up as you go along. Their is no contract law in Texas or any state that would prohibit a state from defining marriage any way they want.

Nope. States can ignore marriages from other states that conflict with their public policy. For instance a state that requires 18 yrs of age for marriage, isnt required to recognize marriages from other states between minors.
Full faith and credit requires states to recognize the marriages from other states ONLY if the same marriage conducted in their state would be recognized.


In Wilkins v. Zelichowski, a New Jersey court use public policy grounds to annul a marriage performed in Indiana involving a female under the age of 18.

In Catalano v. Catalano, a Connecticut court invalidated a marriage between an uncle and his niece declaring that “[a] state has the authority to declare what marriages of its citizens shall be recognized as valid, regardless of the fact that the marriage may have been entered into in a foreign jurisdictions where they were valid.”

In Mortenson v. Mortenson, an Arizona court applied the public policy exception to void a marriage performed in New Mexico between two first cousins

 

I'm actually going to partially agree. A state can define marriage anyway they want but a person cannot marry an animal because marriage is a contract. Here is the exact sequence of events that happen related to marriage:

1. The individuals to be married go to the County Clerk to obtain a license based upon the State laws related to who can marry and both have to sign for the marriage license to be issued. An animal cannot sign for the marriage license.
2. The couple forms a legal partnership under contract law based upon either a verbal, written or both contract at the marriage ceremony. An animal cannot enter into a contract.
3. Based upon the contract established the State then issues the marriage certificate based upon the contract.

All marriages are based upon contract law and animals cannot enter into a contract regardless of what any State may define as marriage. Nor can a "minor" that has not reached the age of consent under State laws with a few exceptions where the parents or court can "co-sign" on the marriage contract but those contracts are "voidable" (i.e. an annulment) up to the age of consent by the court.

I appreciate the citing of court cases even when they are State cases and the above cases prove the point that the Full Faith and Credit clause is enforceable except under certain conditions where the Court can void a marriage.

In Wilkins v Zelichoski was an uncontested filing for an annualment of the marriage of a girl that married legally in another state where the marriage was legal and that marriage was recognized in New Jersey prior to the seeking of the annulment.

http://nj.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.19570219_0040395.NJ.htm/qx

In short, because the girl did not confirm the marriage after the age of 18 the Court could issue the annulment but the marriage was valid and recognized in the State of New Jersey. The Full Faith and Credit clause was enforced as the marriage was valid but was later annuled by Court order based upon the petition of the girl.

Catalano v. Catalano doesn't address a marriage in the United States but instead in Italy. It was a marriage between and uncle and niece that is prohibited by ever State and the Court made the determination that a marriage that isn't legal anywhere in the the United States is not valid in any State. The marriage was voided based upon that and did not involved the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution.

http://ct.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.\CT\1961\19610420_0042043.CT.htm/qx

Mortenson v. Mortenson is interesting because of the circumstances. The marriage was conducted in New Mexico but the couple were citizens of Arizona and went to New Mexico to by-pass Arizona marriage laws. The couple never became citizens of New Mexico but instead immediately returned to Arizona. The Court ruled that because the couple never resided in New Mexico and were never citizens of New Mexico that their marriage was not valid under Arizona law. Had the couple been married in New Mexico and lived as a married couple in New Mexico the marriage would have been valid in Arizona when they moved to Arizona under the Full Faith and Credit clause.

http://az.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.19571029_0040028.AZ.htm/qx

This case would establish precedent related to a same-sex (gender) couple that goes to another state to marry where it's legal but never lives in the state where their marriage is legal. Arizona could void the marriage in Arizona and not recogmize it. On the other hand if a same-sex (gender) couple reside in the state where their marriage is legal and are citizens of that state and then, at some point in the future, move to Arizona, under the precedent established by Mortenson v. Mortenson the State of Arizona must recognize their marriage. The Full Faith and Credit clause requires this recognition and Arizona would have to abide by this provision in the US Constitution.

 

Nonsense. Your point was that states would have to recognize gay marriages from other states. The full faith and credit clause has the long established public policy exception. States do not have to recognize marriages form other states if it is against their public policy, such as a public policy of only encouraging heterosexual couples to marry. Ful faith and credit requires states to recognize marriages performed in other states, IF that state would recognize the same marriage conducted in their state.

 

It will only be a matter of time, before homosexual marriage is legal in all 50 States; only a matter of time.

 

Click the heals of your ruby red slippers together 3 times while stating, "There's no place like home", maybe it will become true dorothy

 

Knock 3 Times on your wooden skull and face reality, if you can manage to do it.

It is merely a matter of time, dixon.

 

It's not gonna fly in Texas.

 

it will if the supreme court says it will.

 

That's what they said about the repeal of sodomy laws as well. We all know how that turned out.