I have a gay marriage question?

That is a very interesting interpretation, however, because the intent of full faith and credit is for each state to recognize the "public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state", if there were a public policy exception regarding marriage (or any other legal matter), it would have to be adjudicated on a case by case (and state by state [50 X 50]) basis because there is no public policy exception in the Constitution. Do any of the cases that you cited have anything to do with marriage? I checked one and it had to do with probate laws. Perhaps you can use references that relate to the subject in some way.

 

According to what I've read on the subject, FF&C was never invoked in a case during the time when interracial laws were illegal. If there ever was a time where it might have been invoked, that would have been it. That said, and although the court has never reviewed FF&C with regard to marriage recognition, their judgments have been broad and consistent enough that the public policy exception is fairly well predictable and established.

FF&C might be understood for requiring one state to recognize the public acts, records and judicial proceedings of another state, but this doesn't necessarily mean transferability of substantially different documents, licenses, and public policy that happens to go by the same name. The acts, public policy and licenses will simply be recognized for what they are.... a same-sex mariage in a state that allows it will be recognized as what a similar document would be recognized as in another state... if that other state has no official recognition for gay marriage, then the mariage won't be recognized. Not unless the same-sex marriage is held by Court to be substantively identical to the opposite-sex counterparts, which is not really a question of the FF&C... rather due process and equal protection.

In actual practice, likely some elements of the marriage would transfer in SUBSTANTIVELY identical ways that are consistant with the public policy of the new state. For example, the power of attorney granted by a marriage would likely be recognized strictly as a power of attorney in the new state... although not by the same name, their effects are substantively identical and consistent with the public policy of both states. Other matters, such as being put on their spouse's insurance, would not transfer unless that state already had some similar mechanism for allowing a same-sex partner with no other official recognition on their partner's insurance. Property rights likely would not transfer in the event of the death of a spouse, as there was no official sale of property, taxes paid resulting from the sale/"gift", etc. All of it would be on pretty shaky ground... like you said, it's a pretty complicated mess and just depends on the multitude of differences in the 50x50 public policy comparisons and how the courts and executors interpret this new territory of law.

 

If the same-sex marriage is held by the court to be substantively identical to the opposite-sex counterparts, then it will be a FF&C issue. The due process and equal protection is being used to claim that same-sex marriage is in fact the same as the opposite-sex counterparts. Homosexuals are saying they are being denied the right of heterosexuals.

 

Property rights would actually probably be pretty interesting to deal with the more I think about it. If a Same-sex couple marries and divorces in one state, the divorce decree and required property distribution would be recognized and enforced by all states, no questions asked since there's no exception on judgments. But let's say one of the couple dies in the state that performed the marriage, and that this couple had property in other states as well. Does all property transfer to the surviving spouse, even in other states where the marriage isn't recognized? Does the property only transfer in the states the marriage is recognized in, and go elsewhere in other states? Or if they moved to another state before the death happened, but had property in the state where they first married.... is it the state they are currently residing in that has jurisdiction over where the property goes from the state they were originally married in, or does the distribution of that property fall under the jurisdiction of the state that the individual who died resided in?

Not exactly sure how questions like this works... likely makes for a need of some complicated and careful estate planning.

 

I'll agree with that point, but if SSM is won on the point of due process and equal protection in all states, then they can already marry in every state... I doubt the FF&C question will be a significant issue of contention. Even as is, two states that both recognize SSM transfer that marriage, no questions asked. FF&C may be relevant in these transferes, but nobody questions that point of it.

People talk about the FF&C as though it would transfer marriage in and of itself without consideration for the question of equal protection and due process. This is highly unlikely.

 

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.
http://www.buddybuddy.com/fenstn-1.html

 

Then why the need for DOMA?

And interracial marriage came about as a result of court decisions. My point was that all these are forms of discrimination which used to exist but do no exist (at least as far as the law is concerned) today.

Which is a "because I said so" answer of exactly the kind which is being tested in Federal court today.

Is everyone who disagrees with social conservatives a "leftist"?

Seven recent Federal court findings disagree:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act

"Section 3 of DOMA has been found unconstitutional in seven federal courts on issues including bankruptcy, public employee benefits, estate taxes, and immigration. As of 2012 five of those cases are awaiting a response for review from the U.S. Supreme Court.[n 1]"

The legislation was crafted in reaction to the fear that same-sex marriage was about to take place in Hawaii:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-barr5-2009jan05,0,1855836.story

DOMA was indeed designed to thwart the then-nascent move in a few state courts and legislatures to afford partial or full recognition to same-sex couples. The Hawaii court case Baehr vs. Lewin, still active while DOMA was being considered by Congress in mid-1996, provided the immediate impetus.

The part about crafting daft legislation which will come back to bite you on the bum.

I absolutely believe he went against his own conscience on this for the sake of political expedience and probably some back-room deals thrown in as well.

Would that be the truth of the seven Federal courts finding DOMA unconstitutional or both the district and appellate courts finding similar unconstitutionality in the case of Prop 8?

Seven Federal courts and the prop 8 trial disagree.

Parsed in exactly the kind of language which helps prove animus and win cases for your opposition. I agree with you that it is a useless waste of time and money though.

My point was that the process of law which protects gay people from people like you is the very same process you would go running to if you felt your individual freedom was being threatened. Everybody gets to use it. It doesn't belong to you because you claim "god said so".

Seven Federal courts and Prop 8 disagree.

Not true in six states and numerous countries around the world.

Yes, no dispassionate research had ever been conducted defining homosexuality as a pathology in the first place. The sparse research that had taken place concerned people with other recognizable disorders who also happened to be homosexual. Religion had a stranglehold on medicine at the time and it was easy to transmute their concepts of sin into concepts of mental illness without a shred of evidence as to why. After all: you "had to be sick to go against the word of god". Don't pretend is wasn't exactly that way.

Here's the summary from the APA again:

"lesbian, gay, and bisexual orientations are not disorders. Research has found no inherent association between any of these sexual orientations and psychopathology. Both heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior are normal aspects of human sexuality. Both have been documented in many different cultures and historical eras. Despite the persistence of stereotypes that portray lesbian, gay, and bisexual people as disturbed, several decades of research and clinical experience have led all mainstream medical and mental health organizations in this country to conclude that these orientations represent normal forms of human experience. Lesbian, gay, and bisexual relationships are normal forms of human bonding. Therefore, these mainstream organizations long ago abandoned classifications of homosexuality as a mental disorder. "

If I scour the internet and provide links to some of the research referenced here will you promise to admit you are wrong, and to never again conflate homosexuality with "mental illness" in this or any other thread? Will you further, promise to defend the gay community from such accusations at every opportunity because you have been proven wrong once-and-for-all?

Your commitment to this will make it worth the time and effort, otherwise I will default to my belief that you will never accept anything (like the endorsement of every credible medical and social scientific body in the western world) that contradicts your position because you have an extreme hatred for gays.

 

See, now those are excellent examples. Would have been interesting to see what the Supremes would have ruled on these two cases regarding FF&C.

 

By what criteria, what was your methodology?

Yes every credible medical and social scientific body in the western world. Not just the odd one or two, every one. If that's not enough to convince you then what is or ever will be?

Because you say so despite the fact that every credible medical and social scientific body in the western world disagrees with you?

To a degree, all diagnoses of mental illness have sociological explanations and concerns. Is the person incapable of living, interacting in society in a way which is not harmful to themselves or others? Can the person function independently and without assistance/medication etc. Beyond that, I gave you my challenge in a former post. If you want to take it up, that's up to you.

Refer to former post.

No it means he's a homosexual who admits he's pretending that he isn't. That is not a "cure".

Well that's going to be difficult because every credible medical and social scientific body in the western world disagrees with you that it is.

Well nothing has ever worked to this point but have at it if you can do so in a manner which is safe and within the boundaries of the Hippocratic oath.

Spitzer retracted the study himself as a matter of scientific conscience not coercion:

"By almost any measure, in short, the study failed the test of scientific rigor that Dr. Spitzer himself was so instrumental in enforcing for so many years. "

If anybody's really interested in the Spitzer retraction story you can find it here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/19/h...-for-study-on-gay-cure.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0

 

You're full of it. Please, get real.

 

Its 3 cases and I suspect they would decide the same way.

 

This is why:

You answer your own stupid question 5 lines down.

Again, IRRELEVANT. APPLES AND ORANGES. Do I have to cite the entire 14th Amendment for you? Screw that, here's a link, read it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Okay, you call it "because I said so", everyone else calls it "established principle" or "legal precedent" or "Stare decisis et non quieta movere" or original intent.

I would say that everyone who spews leftist propaganda and lies is a leftist.

No shirt Sherlock, that is what all the fuss is over. That is why we have DOMA. Stupid leftist judges with no conscience will use the power of the bench to legislate new laws and new rights regardless of the fact that they have no legal precendent to stand on. Frankly, I think we should make it easier to impeach these nitwits.

Keep reading and learning.

Yeah, because Clinton the rapist, molester, flasher, cheater, womanizer respects other people and is concerned about their civil rights. (That is sarcasm for those of you in Rio Linda).
Would that be the truth of the seven Federal courts finding DOMA unconstitutional or both the district and appellate courts finding similar unconstitutionality in the case of Prop 8?

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah blah blah. Yes, they can get married in 6 states. Big deal. It's not a real marriage. We have gone over and around and up and down on this. See Answers A & B.

I wish it were still that way. Now it seems as though a bunch of Godless heathen democrats have taken over many professional trades, the media and academia as well as other fields, with the intent of forcing the God out of our society altogether.

I have done a scientific study of my own. I noticed that all gay people do engage in a pathologically abnormal behavior which suggest to me that they are mentally ill. That is they are homosexuals. There, no more study need be done. Common sense tells you when you see a person with down syndrome, that they have a lowered mental capacity. If someone compulsively act in ways that go against nature, then they have a mental defect.

Yeah, they reach this conclusion in spite of the common sense conclusion that abnormal behavior is indicitive of an abnormality.

Okay, if you equally agree to never again speak out in favor of gay-marriage again if I can provide you with a link to a minister who will tell you that being gay is a sin?

This is not about my extreme hatred for gays. I have gay friends. I don't condone their sexual practices. It really doesn't matter how much research you provide me with, if they have somehow come to the erroneous conclusion that being gay is absolutely normal, then they have come to that conclusion in spite of the scientifically obvious facts and out of a need to substantiate their own previously determined personal opinions.

 

Yeah, this is just so pathetic. You deal in a lot of absolutes. Every credible medical and social scientific body in the western world? Yet the only study cited was by me, and it was by the founder of the gay is not a mental illness crowd. How long after he carelessly published his work that failed the test of scientific rigor did he print his retraction, and how much study did he put into discrediting his own work before he did? Pathetic.

 

What exactly constitutes a "mental disorder"? It's an arbitrary, man-made concept. Arguing about whether something satisfies the criteria of being an arbitrary concept doesn't exactly mean much, unless you're simply judging whether those who are defining "mental disorders" are doing so consistently.

The meaning depends on who you ask. The APA, for example, only really considers something a mental disorder if it satisfies a few criteria, for example that the condition causes distress and that it makes it difficult to perform essential functions (i.e. like work) that are expected of the individual. Simply being weird is not a mental disorder, by their standard, unless it causes hardship and distress.

Depending on how you define "mental disorder", I'm perfectly happy saying homosexuality is a mental disorder. By some standards, failure to desire to reproduce are mental disorders, drinking coffee habitually is a mental disorder, dipping your hamburger in your milkshake before eating it is a mental disorder. If being a mental disorder just means being weird or unusual, so be it, who cares.

A better question is what is clinically significant and needs to be treated, and why... and even more importantly, how. Sometimes the solution isn't to ban or discourage something, but instead to do it safely. You might be insane for jumping out of an airplane, but you should encourage them to do it with a carefully packed shoot. Hockey players might risk heavy injury, but they should encourage them to wear appropriate pads. Sex carries risks for all people, but should be encouraged with safe practices like monogamy, condom and contraception use. Solutions generally need to be practical.

 

This is for you Johnny-C:

Excellent question. Let's see. Several of Colombine's posts have stated that homosexuality does not fall under the definition of a psychopathology. What is psychopathology? Good question again:

So one must ask what is normal behavior? Well, what is the definition of normal?

Is homosexuality conforming to the standard? No. Is it the common type? No. Is it the usual? No. Is is regular? No. Is it natural? Definitely not. Is it not abnormal? Well given that it failed all the other tests of what is normal, one must conclude that is it not not abnormal.
Does it serve to establish a standard? No.
Is it the approximate average in any psychological trait? Again no.
Is it free from any mental disorder? Well it is a mental disorder, so no.
Is it free from any infection or other form of disease or malformation, or from experimental therapy or manipulation. No. In fact, some have been cured.
Is it of natural occurrence? No. In spite of what others might say, hey monkeys do it, well monkeys also can get viruses. That doesn't mean being sick with a virus is normal.

 

A minister isn't a scientist or medical professional. His followers are entitled to think, believe and act in anyway they see fit but the law cannot allow them to dictate terms for everyone else. Don't agree with same-sex marriage? Then don't have one. Tell your followers they can't have one too as long as they wish to belong.

That was the answer I was looking for.

 

"Psychopathology is the study of mental illness, mental distress, and abnormal/maladaptive behavior."

It's curious that the quoted definition chose to explicitly put "abnormal/maladaptive" together. A characteristic can be abnormal but not maladaptive. Similarly, it can be maladaptive but normal. Your focus only on the normalcy is a little disingenuous. "mental distress" and "maladaptation" are important considerations when health professionals are classifying something as a clinically significant disorder, as opposed to just being weird.


By your standard above, mountain-climbing, skydiving, and dipping your hamburger in your milkshake before you eat it are mental disorders.

 

Yep. Maintain Separation of Church and State... as much as it is possible.

 

LOL!! I don't want any of your obfuscatory BS.

I simply know that homosexuality is normal by scientific definition. I know it isn't socially acceptable to ALL human beings; then again, some people don't like red-heads and freckles.

So be it.

 

Oh, you were hoping to convince me that you are right? How sad. Frankly, I could google and find scientists and medical professionals who disagree with the current popular consensus only to be disappointed that you lack the mental flexability to change your opinion in spite of my overwhelming evidence. Ho hum.

 

For LGBT people, at least some of them, it is never ok to disagree with them on their tactics even if one agrees with their objectives.

 

It's a fight. We can be reasonable, but don't expect us to lay down our weapons and quit fighting; YOU wouldn't do it.

 

Oh great, now you've done it. Now mountain-climbing skydivers will want to change the laws so they can get married to milkshake dippers. Pfttah.

 

True. It is not normal though by any standard of common sense or in any true sense of the word "normal". I like red-headed freckled people. But then again, they are not trying to change the definition of marriage, unless they're gay.

 

As far as I'm aware, red-headed freckled people don't have any restriction with regard to marriage, naturally they're not trying to change it.

So, just checking, are you then agreeing that mountain-climbers, skydivers and milkshake dippers are mentally ill?