If . . . . .

[J. J.]

My question was very simple: How the election would have been looked like without this gay marriage stupidity.

In 1992 it was “It’s the economy, stupid”
In 2004 it was “It’s the gays, stupid”

What a shame. Most people in the civilized world are unable to understand it. People of Moslem countries such as Saudi Arabia, on the other hand, do  understand it very well.

Shira, you are right to place a lot of blame on Kerry's loss on the ruling, but ultimately Kerry himself doomed his candidacy.

Kerry was not a pefect candidate. But without the gay marriage issue, he had won the election.

That seems to very hard to claim, since Bush's position is to leave the matter up to the states.

[J. J.]

Wrong again.  Here is a quote from another thread:

Now, here is the text of the proposed amendment:


Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the Constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.  

Here is, after lengthy discussion, what elcorazon said about it.

I believe your analysis of the language is inaccurate.  The proposed amendment would do 2 things:

1) make it unconstitutional for any state to recognize marriage other than between a man and a woman;
2) allow the states to set up other "rights", not including marriage upon same-sex couples, while not requiring other states to recognize those rights. [emphasis added]

Now, I disagree with him on his first point, but I agree with him on the second.  He is a Democrat and a Kerry supporter. 

Here is Bush's quote from the debate:  "It basically protected states from the action of one state to another."

This amendment basically permits one state not to recognize a same sex marriage or civil union contracted in another state.

[J. J.]

Wrong again.  Here is a quote from another thread:

Now, here is the text of the proposed amendment:


Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the Constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.  

Here is, after lengthy discussion, what elcorazon said about it.

I believe your analysis of the language is inaccurate.  The proposed amendment would do 2 things:

1) make it unconstitutional for any state to recognize marriage other than between a man and a woman;
2) allow the states to set up other "rights", not including marriage upon same-sex couples, while not requiring other states to recognize those rights. [emphasis added]

Now, I disagree with him on his first point, but I agree with him on the second.  He is a Democrat and a Kerry supporter. 

Here is Bush's quote from the debate:  "It basically protected states from the action of one state to another."

This amendment basically permits one state not to recognize a same sex marriage or civil union contracted in another state.

Here's a factoid: No state is forced to recognize another state's marriage.

Would you cite your source for that "factoid?"

[J. J.]

How does defining "marriage" to be "the union of a man and a woman" not disallow same-sex marriage?

Bush can say what he wants about the amendment, but its text is what it is.

Here is the text again:

Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the Constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.  

This gives the definition of the types what constitutes a marriage, for constitutional purposes, not a prohibition on the marriages.  For a prohibition within the constitution, see the 13th Amendment.  The 13th Amendment does establish a prohibition, uses different wording.

You'll also note the "shall be construed' line.  If the first line banned same sex marriages, there could be no construction.  Some southern states had a clause in them permitting slavery, that were not removed until the late 20th Century.  It wasn't necessary to put the line about construction in the 13th Amendment, because that prohibition was included.

This amendment does not even prevent a state legislature from enacting statute to permit same sex marriages.  It limits the rule of the judiciary in finding a same sex marriage "right" in a state or in the Federal constitutions.

[J. J.]

Some have argued that DOMA is unconstitutional and would not survive judicial scrutiny under the Supreme Court of the United States because it goes beyond the powers granted to Congress by that clause.  But the Supreme Court has long recognized a "public policy exception" to the Full Faith and Credit clause. If the legal pronouncements of one state conflict with the public policy of another state, federal courts in the past have been reluctant to force a state to enforce the pronouncements of another state in contravention of its own public policy. The public policy exception has been applied in cases of marriage (such as polygamy, miscegenation or consanguinity).

I disagree with you, quite specifically, on the case of miscegenation.  The Loving Case clearly showed that a state could not prohibit interracial marriages.  I would argue that this was clearly the intent of the 14th Amendment and may have been established in federal statute as well.

My problem with this that DOMA may not pass constitutional review, because the "full faith and credit" clause, as you've noted (Article IV, Section 1.).  I'll admit that it is a gray area, and that I would prefer an amendment spelling out the limits.

[J. J.]

Here's the part I'm referring to:

"Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman."

Here it is again:

"Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman."

I fail to see how this is not defining "marriage" such that same-sex marriages are impossible.

If it did, you would not require the second line:

 "Neither this Constitution, nor the Constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman."

If there was a prohibition, it could be expressed simply as:  "No marriage, except for that between a man and a woman, shall exist within the United States or any place subject subject to their jurisdiction (based on 13th Amendment). "

Likewise, it could read, "Marriage between persons of the same sex is hereby prohibited (based of the 18th Amendment)." 

It doesn't say either. 

The definition states what, the minimum definition of a marraige is.  A marriage will be valid, between states, if it is between a man and a woman.  It will not necessarily, again between states, make a same sex marriage, illegal in one state, valid in another.  It doesn't prohibit one state, State A, from recognizing another state's, State B same sex marriage, but it removes the potential requirement that State A must recognize State B's same sex marriage.

[J. J.]

I know what it says --- and states do not have to recognize a homosexual marriage.

I'll ask again.  Would you like site a source for your opinion?  Or do you just plan to create a straw man to attack.

[J. J.]

Here are three links:

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~kdown/loving.html

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=388&invol=1

http://gaylife.about.com/cs/gaymarriage/a/lovingvvirg.htm

The first one is a brief summary of Loving v. Virginia.

The second is the text of Supreme Court Decision.

The third is a story posted on the "About" website, under the "Gay Life" section, explaining how this case is considered applicable to permitting same sex marriages.

[J. J.]

Wrong again.  Here is a quote from another thread:

Now, here is the text of the proposed amendment:


Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the Constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.  

Here is, after lengthy discussion, what elcorazon said about it.

I believe your analysis of the language is inaccurate.  The proposed amendment would do 2 things:

1) make it unconstitutional for any state to recognize marriage other than between a man and a woman;
2) allow the states to set up other "rights", not including marriage upon same-sex couples, while not requiring other states to recognize those rights. [emphasis added]

Now, I disagree with him on his first point, but I agree with him on the second.  He is a Democrat and a Kerry supporter. 

Here is Bush's quote from the debate:  "It basically protected states from the action of one state to another."

This amendment basically permits one state not to recognize a same sex marriage or civil union contracted in another state.

That sounds clearly like it bans gay marriage, nullifying thousands of Massachusetts marriage licenses.  States already can choose not to accept marriages from other states.

If so, jFRAUD, explain the construction clause in the amendment.  If this was a ban, it wouldn't be needed.

[J. J.]

Bush’s position is irrelevant. What is important is the fear that was successfully inserted in the minds of the “Religious Right” people that if Kerry is elected, gay marriage will be recognized.

It is not too difficult to indoctrinate these people, many of whom believe even today that Sadam is responsible for 9/11.

The interesting thing here is that Kerry voted against DOMA, which is some indication that Kerry was not opposed to same sex marriages.  It's far from "indoctrination," but another example of Kerry hiding from his record.  While he said he opposed it, he didn't support statutory action to prevent one state from being forced to recognize another state's same sex marraige.

[J. J.]

Bush’s position is irrelevant. What is important is the fear that was successfully inserted in the minds of the “Religious Right” people that if Kerry is elected, gay marriage will be recognized.

It is not too difficult to indoctrinate these people, many of whom believe even today that Sadam is responsible for 9/11.

The interesting thing here is that Kerry voted against DOMA, which is some indication that Kerry was not opposed to same sex marriages.  It's far from "indoctrination," but another example of Kerry hiding from his record.  While he said he opposed it, he didn't support statutory action to prevent one state from being forced to recognize another state's same sex marraige.

Bush's and Kerry's positions are immaterial. What so ridiculous and frightening about it is, that this stupid non-issue decided who would be the president of the strongest nation in the world.

It isn't a 'non-issue' to the people who voted for Bush - hatred and abuse of homosexuals is a high priority with them.  It is really symbolic of their desire to legislate the demise of blacks, liberals, atheists, etc., but so far the only group they seem to be able to get away with oppressing are the gays.  You know the old chestnut -  'first they came for the Jews, and I was silent, then they came for the... etc.. and finally they came for me, and no one was left to speak for me'.

But it is a rather odd circumstance that a highly dangerous military-industrial complex, built upon the abilities and resources of the civilized portion of the nation, is now being wielded by the uncivilized portion.  A highly dangerous situation, and one that brings to mind no other historical precedent than that of Germany in the 1930's.

This is once again an example of both your bigotry and your lack of sanity, bopeepo. 

We also had president who signed a Federal law, DOMA stating that one state did not have to recognize another state's civil unions.  His name was Bill Clinton.

There was a president who said, of DOMA, "It basically protected states from the action of one state to another. It also defined marriage as between a man and woman. "  His name was George W. Bush. 

We had a presidential candidate that says, "Now, with respect to DOMA and the marriage laws, the states have always been able to manage those laws. And they're proving today, every state, that they can manage them adequately."  While he doesn't address the squarely, he is saying that the states can manage those laws.

The argument that I'm seeing is if Article 4 Secion 1 of the US Constitution Applies.

[J. J.]

Opebo...bopeep  whatever.....you are the epitome of bigotry trying to attribute all the ills of whatever your warped sense of the world is to religion and the majority right.  Your secular view of the world is not the majority view in this country.  Pack it up and head to Europe where you can bask in all the social secularism you want to.  Breathe deep the failings of secularism.  The dead-end.  The death.  The doom of that very way.  It is seductive and you have been seduced.  GO NOW!!!!

What 'failings of secularism'?  By every measure of health, happiness, and well being, Europeans are far ahead of Americans.

The 20th Century has shown a general decline in Western Europe, in terms of both power and culture.  The iportance of Europe has been eclipsed. 

On Jan. 1, 1901, Europe boasted these world powers, the Great Britain, France, Germany, Russia and Austria-Hungary, with Italy approaching.  The other three were the US, Japan, and arguably Turkey (which was largely outside of Europe).  The first four contolled more than half of the land on the surface of the planet and possibly close to one half of the world poplulation.  And on Jan. 1, 2001?

[J. J.]

Opebo...bopeep  whatever.....you are the epitome of bigotry trying to attribute all the ills of whatever your warped sense of the world is to religion and the majority right.  Your secular view of the world is not the majority view in this country.  Pack it up and head to Europe where you can bask in all the social secularism you want to.  Breathe deep the failings of secularism.  The dead-end.  The death.  The doom of that very way.  It is seductive and you have been seduced.  GO NOW!!!!

What 'failings of secularism'?  By every measure of health, happiness, and well being, Europeans are far ahead of Americans.

The 20th Century has shown a general decline in Western Europe, in terms of both power and culture.  The iportance of Europe has been eclipsed. 

Who cares about that?  I'm talking about quality of life for the average European - it far exceeds that of the average American.

The 51% of the electorate who voted for Bush care about that.

[J. J.]

How can you possibly regard life expectency as a sign of advancement.  A portion of it is genetic and European contries tend to be genetically homogenous.

[J. J.]

How can you possibly regard life expectency as a sign of advancement.  A portion of it is genetic and European contries tend to be genetically homogenous.

Yes, America has many races, and the non-white ones tend not to have any medical care.

Actually, that is not rally the case. 

You are comparing largely mono-ethnic societies with multi-ethnic ones.  Then you are suggesting that the mono-ethnic societies, the ones with all the white people with it, as "better." 

Bopeepo, isn't your and Shira's position ultimately, the country's that are "better" have more white people in them?

[J. J.]

How can you possibly regard life expectency as a sign of advancement.  A portion of it is genetic and European contries tend to be genetically homogenous.

Yes, America has many races, and the non-white ones tend not to have any medical care.

Actually, that is not rally the case. 

You are comparing largely mono-ethnic societies with multi-ethnic ones.  Then you are suggesting that the mono-ethnic societies, the ones with all the white people with it, as "better." 

Bopeepo, isn't your and Shira's position ultimately, the country's that are "better" have more white people in them?

Obviously no. 

Though it is true that in monoethnic societies, fewer people are as deeply oppressed as minorities are in the US.

Well, I have not seen "oppression" that lowers life expectency at least not on a massive scale.

There is, however, a wide genetic difference in the European population and the US populations.  I do detect more than underlying current of bigotry in your posts.