From the Constitution of the United States: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article04/ In the annotations for Article IV it shows that the inclusion of this clause in the US Constitution had it's roots in international laws and customs. I quote, in part, from the annotation: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article04/01.html#1 This is very relevant related to same-gender marriage in the United States today. As we know Judge Joseph L. Tauro of the Federal Court of Boston has declared the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional based upon two Amendments to the US Constitution. In the case Judge Tauro ruled that the definition of marriage under DOMA of being exclusively related to marriage between a man and a woman violated the Commonwealth of Massachusetts rights under the 10th Amendment. Marriage has always been defined by state law and there was no legal precedent for the federal government to violate the state's rights in defining marriage. Judge Tauro also determined that the limitation by DOMA that the federal government deny benefits to same-sex couples violated the individual right of equal protection under the law established by the 14th Amendment. From Judge Tauro's decision: The Obama adminstration originally appealed this decision but upon further review of the evidence it withdrew it's appeal. Since then the House Republicans retained legal services to re-instate the appeal. The first law firm the House Republicans hired, a very conservative law firm, later withdrew after reviewing the evidence presented in the initial court hearing. The House Republicans have retained a new law firm but the Court's decision is so well founded that all logical observers realize that there isn't a chance in hell of that the decision will be overturned. When the legal dust settles the provisions in DOMA that limit marriage to a man and a woman is going to be declared unconstitutional and struck down. House Republicans are merely playing politics with the social conservatives because they know that DOMA is unconstitutional. That's why candidates for president like Mitt Romney signed a pledge to get a Constitutional amendment that would deny the recognition of same-sex marriage at the federal level. The fact that such an amendment would never be ratified isn't a concern to someone like Romney because he's merely putting on a show for the social conservatives. Back to Article IV where one of the key considerations related to the full faith and credit clause is that a marriage in one jurisdiction (state) must be accepted by all other jurisdictions (states) in the United States. We have some states, such as N Carolina this week, which have gone so far as to ban same-sex marriage in their State Constitution but the US Constitution take precedent over all State Constitutions. With the demise of DOMA all states will have to give "full faith and credit" to every married couple that enters their state including same-sex couples married in states like Massachusetts. While the N Carolina State Constitution states that they don't recognize same-sex marriage the US Constitution says that N Carolina must recognizes same-sex marriage if the individuals were married in a state which doesn't prohibit same-sex marriage. This is going to be true for every state regardless of whether they have a law or a state constitution which denies the recognition of marriage for same-sex couples as each of these must acknowledge that marriage under Article IV of the US Constitution. This is going to cause another problem for these states. While they won't be issuing marriage licenses for same-sex couples, which is technically their legal right under the 10th Amendment, the fact that same-sex marriage for individuals married in other states must be recognized is going to create a case of denial of equal protection under the law for the State's own same-sex couples. Once DOMA falls the prohibitions against same-gender marriage fall like a house of cards. Even state constitutional prohibitions have to fall to the authority of the US Constitution. We really must wonder why states are passing these laws and state constitutional amendments when they know that the denial of equal protection and the full faith and credit clause of the US Constitution are going to force them to accept same-sex marriage in the very near future.
Probably much the same reason you provided for why Romney made his pledge: it let's the politicians that backed them argue "they've done something." Ironically, that's the same thing Pelosi and Obama said about Obamacare. Kind of frustrated with politicians trying to look busy, instead of actually getting problems solved.
We often see politicians doing the "political" thing as opposed to doing what's right. There is no doubt that Obama, Pelosi and Reid knew that they were walking on Constitutional prohibitions with Obamacare and they passed it anyway. The current political philosophy seems to be "To hell with the Constitution. We'll pass the law and then force people to establish that it's unconstitutional in court. If nothing else we can screw them for several years before the laws declared unconstitutional." I actually remember reading of historical cases where Congress reviewed the Constitutionality of the law before they even voted on it. In fact they reached a consensus that is wasn't so they didn't pass it. I've also read of presidents vetoing a law because it was unconstitutional. That simply won't happen today because no one in Washington really gives a hoot about the Constitution. They use it if its on their side and ignore it if its not.
So according to you if a State says it is okay for a 90 year old man to marry six six-year old boys it automatically means "the US Constitution says that N Carolina must recognize" such marriages? I do not think you can remove this part: "And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof."
I always love how some resort to absurdity in their arguments. Marriage establishes a contract and a six-year old cannot enter a contract therefore they cannot marry. Yes, the Congress may specify the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof" but it cannot be discriminatory in it's actions in doing so. DOMA was an attempt at invidious discrimination related to the State controled institution of marriage and the federal government cannot do this as was determine by the Federal Court in Boston. The federal government must accept all marriages as being equal to all other marriages. Once again, when this happens, the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment drives other states to recognize the same rights under the federal laws for their citizens that another state provides for their citizens. By way of example, if same-sex couples are afforded joint bankruptcy protection in Massachusetts because they can marry then same-sex couples in N Carolina must also be afforded joint bankruptcy protection under federal law and that protection is afforded based upon marital status. N Carolina would have to allow same-sex couples to marry so that they would receive the identical protections under federal bankruptcy laws that are afforded to a same-sex couple in Massachusetts. It is a three-pronged sword because Article IV, the 10th Amendment and the 14th Amendment are all applicable.
Granny says, "Dat's right, dey shouldn't be forced to go against dey's religion fer the gay agenda - it'd be a violation of the separation of church an' state... House Armed Services Committee: Chaplains Cannot be Forced to Perform Same-Sex Marriages May 10, 2012 Just hours after President Obama came out Wednesday in favor of homosexual "marriage," members of the House Armed Services Committee voted 36 to 25 to adopt an amendment protecting the religious liberty of military service members, especially chaplains, on the issue of same-sex marriage.
Is it at all surprising that the "social conservative" Republican's that control the House Armed Services Committee would ignore the history and Mission Statement of Chaplains? Let's start with the fact that US Army chaplains, which are typical of all US military chaplains, have always provided services to all religions and have never been allowed to simply impose the specific views of religion upon the members of the US military. They are cross-trained to be able to provide spiritual and religious guidance to all members of the US military and it is not uncommon for a Christian chaplain to provide religious assistance for a Muslim or a Jew or a Buddhist. This is exemplified by their Mission Statement and Vision Statement: http://www.army.mil/info/organization/chaplaincy/ The Republican controlled House Armed Services Committee has now compromised both the Mission Statement and the Vision Statement with their attempt to impose fundamentalist Christian beliefs on the US military. No longer under the proposed law would a Chaplain be required to provide religious services to anyone that doesn't believe in the very limited religious beliefs of the Chaplain. For example a Christain chaplain is no longer required to provide spiritual comfort or guidance to a Muslim because they don't believe in Mohammad and to do so would be to violate their myopic Christain beliefs. The completely miss the point that the Chaplaincy is not about the religious beliefs of the Chaplain but instead about the religious and spiritual beliefs of the soldier!!! It is the Chaplain that must conform to the religious and spiritual beliefs of the soldier and not the soldier that must comply with the religious and spiritual beliefs of the Chaplain. Based upon the proposal of the House Armed Services Committee I would support the abolition of the entire Chaplian corps because it has lost it's unbiased foundation of catering to the religious beliefs of the Soldier and would become nothing more than a Christain indoctrination component of the US military violating the Freedom of Religious beliefs of the US Soldier and an attempt to impose fundamentalist Christianity upon the US military.
There is no absurdity if theoretically a majority of NAMBLA pedophiles across the country could form a movement to move to a smaller State overwhelming their legislature, and ruling that the age of consent is lower. I once had someone born in Morocco tell me of a rather disgusting cultural practice of women calming their babies, want a description or can you guess? It makes the new Time breastfeeding cover tame be comparison. Without a showing of actual wording in the US Constitution with regard to age of consent, MoHamMad in such a State could marry Aisha. The US Constitution does not demand all States accept the culture of others. Whether or not a 14 year old girl (knew a married one once), or many of them, can enter into a marriage contract with an older man is according to State law, not Federal law (except in that district that is a supposed to be a district and not a STATE for a reason). Unless the US Constitution specifically spells it out, we are left with "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people," "And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof." What if the Mormon's had got their State of Deseret, and there was no illegal threat of war to prevent it on the sole grounds of other States opposing polygamy, according to your argument all other States would have to recognize polygamous marriages from that State; people would be able to cross State lines and marry many wives, and there is nothing a State could do about it when they move back, because your argument would effectively remove the phrase "reserved to the States respectively." It is not a three-pronged sword, because Lawrence v. Texas made it a four-pronged sword. Without the Supreme Court ruling, your argument that, "While the N Carolina State Constitution states that they don't recognize same-sex marriage the US Constitution says that N Carolina must recognizes same-sex marriage if the individuals were married in a state which doesn't prohibit same-sex marriage," fails miserably. The US constitution does not say, the Supreme Court said in Lawrence v. Texas, "The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny." The argument for use of the 14th Amendment with regard to Gay marriage only comes into play because of the ruling in Lawrence v. Texas. And the Supreme Court itself has not ruled, yet, that was their intent, thereby striking down DOMA. Without a ruling by the Supreme Court to the contrary the Congress can be discriminatory against Gay marriage, MoHamMad's marriage, and Polygamous contract's effects in States preserving what is "reserved to the States." Any attempt to claim the US Constitution, as so worded, gives rights to Gay marriage being respected by States opposed to it also demands a potential "absurdity" be respected too. "The federal government must accept all marriages as being equal to all other marriages," but that does not mean all States (States have representatives in Congress, it is called the Senate, which exists for a REASON) must accept all such contracts.
The least populated state is Wyoming and I wouldn't suggest that pedophiles move there. If they weren't shot by outraged cowboys they would be quickly arrested, prosecuted, convicted and incarcerated and would lose their right to vote. Yes, in a distorted mind a "theoretical" situation can be invented but it's absurd because it would never happen in reality. To avoid absurdity one must be addressing reality. Yes, there are some states that allow marriage for individuals as young as 14 (as I recall Hawaii is one of those states) and those marriages are recognized by every state if the couple moves to that state. If a person filed a lawsuit because their state recognized the marriage of a 14 yo from another state but denied marriage for a 14 yo and could show how it is discriminatory then they would have a valid case IMO. In such a case it would be age discrimination that is the issue and not marriage per se. Of course we're not addressing child marriage when we discuss same-sex marriage which is between consenting adults. True but the federal government cannot create discrimination related to the Acts, Records, or Proceedings of any State. The definiton of Marriage is established by the States and the Federal government cannot override that definition has it has no Constitutional authority related to Marriage. Once again the federal government does have authority related to equal protection and all states are prohibited from denying equal protection under the law by the 14th Amendment. As was noted above marriage of a 14 yo in one state is recognized in every other state if the couple moves there based upon Article IV's full faith and credit clause so a same-sex marriage must also be recognized because to not recognize it would violate Article IV and the 14th Amendment which are both in the US Constitution. What's wrong with polygamy as long as all of the adults involved do so based upon informed consent? The rights of same-gender couples to marry has nothing to do with sexual behavior as sexual behavior is not codified into any of the marriage laws. It is an issue of gender discrimination and not sexual behavior discrimination. Lawrence v Texas had nothing to do with marriage. DOMA does not address gay marriage. It limited federal recognition of marriage based upon gender and was gender discrimination and not sexual behavior discrimination. People need to actual read the laws. It does not require a Supreme Court "decision" to overturn federal law. The Supreme Court can refuse to listen to a Federal Court case allowing the decision of the lower Court to prevail. In such a case then the law, if declared unconstitutional, is unconstitutional based upon the lower court ruling. Currently DOMA is unconstitutional although that decision is "stayed" pending the appeal. If, for example, the House Republicans had not filed an appeal after the Justice Department withdrew it's appeal to the Boston Courts decision then DOMA Section 3 would have become null and void based upon the Boston Federal Court decision. There is no such thing as "gay" marriage. The prohibitions are against same-gender marriage and not sexual orientation or behavior. The full faith and credit clause does mean that the records, such as birth certificates and marriage certificates, issued by one state must be accepted by all other states.
Let us take a hypothetical situation that does have a remote possibility of happening because it is actually promoted by many rational political minds in America. Let is abolish the legal institution of marriage completely because it is inherently discriminatory. If that were to happen then "marriage" would become a matter of contract law related to partnerships. Contract law is as non-discriminatory as any law can possibly be. Under contract law only those that can provide informed consent to a contract are allowed to enter into the contract. The age of legal consent, which is somewhat arbitrary and discriminatory, is fundamentally 18 years old throughout the United States and establishes "adulthood" in the United States. Under contract law adults can form partnerships. There is no limitation on the number of people nor is there any limitation related to the heredity of those involved. In short, with no "legal definition of marriage" except as addressed by contract law the People of the United States would have the maximum possible "Liberty" as adults related to marriage. In case some have missed it "Liberty" is one of the three enumerated "unalienable" (inalienable) Rights of the People that the United States government is supposed to be protecting. Why do Christians oppose the liberty of individuals to form the personal/financial partnership of marriage that they would be allowed to form under contract law? The "Christain Right's" opposition to same-gender marriage is an attack on the inalienable Right of Liberty of the Individual to engage in personal/financial partnerships based upon mutual consent.
The response I keep hearing is it's the word. For some reason folks become enraged when same sex couples use that word to describe their union. I imagine it's not unlike the way folks in the south reserved the word 'man' for those with a particular color skin and described other adult males as 'boy' or something else. Some became outright indignant at the presumption of one standing upright and calling himself a proud black man. I see the same indignation today -- it scares me that we've matured so little as a society. The way some folks seem to claim authority over the language we share can be destructive and ugly. When you consider the darn word has only been around about 700 years and for most of that time was used primarily for noble men to claim ownership over a woman, I'm not sure it's worth the argument. If the word is the problem... maybe it's not time to retire marriage from our laws, just stop using the m-word in public discourse and law. The way we've shunned other words that became divisive and ugly.
A very interesting perspective and the only problem related to the proposal of banishing the word "marriage" is that there are thousands of laws which use that word in a legal (not religious) sense in establishing protections and benefits to adult individuals involved in personal partnerships which are a protected Right under the 1st Amendment's "right of association" in the US Constitution. But we do see this distortion of the meaning of words by the "Religious Right" elsewhere as well. They have taken the word "baby" which relates to a child from the moment of birth and distorted it in referring to a fetus which relates to the preborn. A child is a person and that is established at the moment of birth but a fetus is non-person as there has never been any historical foundation for "personhood" prior to birth.
Language is a powerful tool. Well chosen words can be compelling. Not simply because of the literal meaning, but because of subtler factors as well. A powerful speaker not only considers imagery and associations, but also repetition, inflection, cadence, tone, and more. It would be fun if the supreme court could rule that, due to recent changes in the constitution of certain states, the term marriage has been defined as a form of unfair discrimination. Subsequently any laws or practices in those states that are based on that word are no longer enforceable. Would be an amazing scramble. Yea, I don't know how to handle the removal of the term marriage from so many aspects of the law. I don't expect propositions like California's Prop 8 or North Carolina's Prop 1 to stand and I think the political winds on the future of marriage equality are pretty clear. Perhaps the best religious organizations can do is start writing marriage the way they write God. There are many gods but one God. I see no reason why it wouldn't be reasonable to differentiate between legal marriage and religious Marriage to accommodate their sensibilities.
What we see are those that distort the meanings of words to suit their personal beliefs. Marriage has a very specific legal meaning when addressed by the laws and it is not the same meaning that many religious individuals personally believe. These religious bigots want to keep a very myopic definition as opposed to the more expanded definition that is required under the law. If we go to the root definition of marriage it is: "any close or intimate association or union" http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/marriage That is the starting point for defining the legal institution of marriage. When we look at the laws that refer to marriage they virtually all relate to the personal/financial "marriage" of a couple. It doesn't have to do with procreation or child raising, although there are considerations for those but even same-gender couples are raising children, but overwhelmingly the laws relate to the merged income, assets and liabilities of the couple. If we were to define "marriage" from a legal standpoint, based upon all of the laws, it would be "any close or intimate association or union based upon a personal/financial partnership between consenting adults" and it remove any legal problems we have today that relate to gender discrimination. Or simply eliminate the State controlled institution of marriage and allow individuals to form their own marriages based upon contract law and treat all of them the same under the laws of the United States.
To play Devil's advocate, we all pressure language to fit our purpose. No, I won't defend folks who make silly claims about what marriage should mean to someone else based on snippets of text from their holy book or some clever interpretation of a quote from half a century ago. But we all distort language based on our personal beliefs. We bend it with every sentence we write, nurturing subtle associations or introducing new context to expand it's application or turn it's meaning. That's how language grows and changes. But yes, I think the definition you quoted there is the most universal and honest one we can attribute to the 700 year old word marriage. I believe that core meaning exists in every lesser or special application of the word. I think it's a good guide to explore what marriage should mean before the law. This never was about language though. The games people play with words damages law more than define it. The state doesn't -- and never should -- control marriage. However the accommodations the state offers, to allow folks to live as one couple avoiding hardship our laws would otherwise cause, are reasonable and I wouldn't ask for their repeal. In the future, I'm confident any new laws or refinements of existing laws will avoid the limitations of that word. In time, it's possible we'll come to see marriage as an antiquated subclass of the state recognized civil union. Still mentioned in slang and story, but in law simply a discouraged synonym for civil union. That might be the best outcome.
Obama & Nancy violatin' the separation of church an' state... White House 'Strongly Objects' to Legislation Protecting Military Chaplains from Doing Same-Sex Weddings or Being Forced to Act Against Conscience May 16, 2012 : The Obama administration strongly objects to provisions in a House defense authorization bill that would prohibit the use of military property for same-sex marriage or marriage-like ceremonies, and protect military chaplains from negative repercussions for refusing to act against their consciences, as, for example, in being ordered to perform a same-sex marriage ceremony. See also: Pelosi: No to Provision Protecting Chaplains From Being Ordered to Act Against Faith: 'It's A Fraud' May 17, 2012 - House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said she stands with the White House in opposing a provision in the House defense authorization bill that would prohibit anyone in the military from ordering a chaplain to act against his or her "conscience, moral principles, or religious beliefs" or against the religious beliefs of the denomination to which he or she belongs.
The US Army Chaplaincy has always been "non-denominational" catering to the individual religious beliefs of the individual soldier as opposed to establishing the religious beliefs of the individual chaplain. H.R. 4310 turns this long-standing mission of the Chaplaincy upside down and, in effect, would establish the "religion of the chaplain" in the US military which would violate the First Amendment's protections related to Freedom of Religion. The "Chaplain's" role in conducting marriages in the US military relates to the civil role of marriage under the law. The perform a legal function regardless of the religious beliefs of the Chaplain. For example, in the US military a "Christian" chaplain can perform a marriage for a Muslim or Hindu if requested to do so even though the chaplain is neither a Muslim or a Hindu. They've always provided this inter-religion function without objection regardless of their personal religious beliefs. The US Military Chaplaincy is about the Soldier and is not to be used as a "Christian Missionary Service" by the Republican bigots in Congress which is what the Republicans are attempting to do in H.R. 4310. If Congress doesn't want the US Military Chaplaincy performing marriages for ALL members of the US Military then they can remove the authority for the Chaplains to perform any marriages. They cannot, under the First Amendment, establish a religious litmus test for marriage which would be discriminatory and violate the Rights of the Individual soldier to hold whatever personal religious beliefs they choose. The role of Chaplain in the US Military is not nor should it ever be about the Chaplain but instead it must be about the soldier.
Granny says dey oughta call her 'Wrong-headed Pelosi'... Chaplain's Group Says Pelosi's Wrong About Need to Protect Conscience Rights of Chaplains May 18, 2012 A group representing more than 2,500 Evangelical Christian military chaplains says House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) was wrong on Thursday when she called a provision in the House defense authorization bill designed to protect military chaplains a fraud. See also: Army General Says He Will Never Fail to Speak Up for 'Moral and Ethical Behavior and Values' May 18, 2012 - Army Chief of Staff Gen. Raymond Odierno says after ten years of continuous combat, the U.S. is transitioning to a "leaner," "more agile" Army -- one that retains its "unwavering commitment to the honor of our profession and our values."
Uncle Ferd says purt soon Obama gonna have us all readin' the Quran an' eatin falafa... Congressman: There is a War on Religious Belief in Military May 17, 2012 - Military chaplains and service members opposed to same-sex marriage are coming under attack in the military, according to Republican lawmakers and a chaplain advocacy group.
