The Chronicle of the Horse
MagazineNewsHorse SportsHorse CareCOTH StoreVoicesThe Chronicle UntackedDirectoriesMarketplaceDates & Results
 
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 61
  1. #41
    Join Date
    Aug. 3, 2004
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    3,823

    Default

    I am quoting poorly but Will Ferrell made the best comment on Congress and gay marriage.

    Something to the effect that we was glad Congress was keeping his marriage safe so he and his wife could go out and buy assault weapons.
    A man must love a thing very much if he not only practices it without any hope of fame or money, but even practices it without any hope of doing it well.--G. K. Chesterton


    6 members found this post helpful.

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Jul. 31, 2007
    Posts
    14,929

    Default

    By the way, how did we get to marriage (and divorce and child support) being a state thing? And should we care about the past, or the lumping together of those issues?

    That seems to be a hang-up: The sheer tradition of putting "all things marital" on a state- rather than federal footing.
    The armchair saddler
    Politically Pro-Cat



  3. #43
    Join Date
    Aug. 3, 2004
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    3,823

    Default

    the states decide who can marry and the federal gov't gives the federal benefits without questioning the marriage.
    A man must love a thing very much if he not only practices it without any hope of fame or money, but even practices it without any hope of doing it well.--G. K. Chesterton


    1 members found this post helpful.

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Mar. 14, 2004
    Location
    Left coast, left wing, left field
    Posts
    6,058

    Default

    Even with religion in the picture, it makes no sense to me. For what other "sin" are marriage rights abridged? I believe even convicted murderers can marry. Not to mention premarital sex. I would just love to see an adulterer or philanderer restricted in the ways that gays have been. Not likely.
    Arrange whatever pieces come your way. - Virginia Woolf

    Did you know that if you say the word "GULLIBLE" really softly, it sounds like "ORANGES"?


    2 members found this post helpful.

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Jul. 31, 2007
    Posts
    14,929

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lizathenag View Post
    the states decide who can marry and the federal gov't gives the federal benefits without questioning the marriage.
    Yabbut how did we get all statey on this issue?
    The armchair saddler
    Politically Pro-Cat



  6. #46
    Join Date
    May. 6, 2003
    Posts
    1,888

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mvp View Post
    Yabbut how did we get all statey on this issue?
    Probably because the colonies all regulated marriage separately under their charters, then the Articles of Confederation didn't regulate ANYTHING, and when we ratified the Constitution they figured they didn't need to get involved in something so well established plus the Full Faith and Credit Clause. Or at least that's the theory I'm putting out there.
    According to the Mayan calendar, the world will not end this week. Please plan your life accordingly.



  7. #47
    Join Date
    Aug. 3, 2004
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    3,823

    Default

    my feeble recollection is sometime in perhaps the 80s (1980s that is), Hawaii gave a marriage license (by mistake to two women). I think they might have had gender neutral names like Terry. Then Hawaii started thinking about civil unions and folks started freaking out and thought the federal government needed to get involved so gay people couldn't get federal benefits.

    but I might be wrong. too lazy to look it up.
    A man must love a thing very much if he not only practices it without any hope of fame or money, but even practices it without any hope of doing it well.--G. K. Chesterton



  8. #48
    Join Date
    Feb. 5, 2010
    Posts
    2,405

    Default

    Here's to hoping "the land of the free" will actually allow two consenting adults in a loving, monogamous relationship to get married. I still can't believe it's NOT legal.


    3 members found this post helpful.

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Jul. 22, 2012
    Location
    CA
    Posts
    806

    Default

    I believe that the argument for "stateyness" lies in the 10th Amendment, which states that "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."

    Basically, the power to regulate marriage is not given to the Federal government, nor is it prohibited from the states, so it is granted to the states to decide what needs to be done in each state to attain a marriage license.
    I believe the same reasoning is applied re: why states regulate and license professionals.

    However, the argument is that 14th amendment prohibits states from creating and enforcing laws that discriminate against US citizens, and by prohibiting gay marriage, they are violating the Constitution.

    It's very possible that I completely botched that explanation. If I did, someone please call me out on it.
    Last edited by big_red_ottb; Apr. 2, 2013 at 02:25 PM.


    2 members found this post helpful.

  10. #50
    Join Date
    May. 8, 2006
    Location
    Northern Indiana
    Posts
    753

    Default

    After many different discussions, I've come to the decision that there is absolutely no way someone ELSE having a gay marriage affects me (or anyone else...other than them being 'morally opposed)....not one way.

    Except for if they get married and demand expensive gifts. Then if affects me.

    Prompting my lesbian friend to make sure that if she ever gets married I'm getting an invitation that specifically states "Expensive and rare gifts to be lavished" upon them. Then I'll have to shake my fist at those darn gays and how they're ruining my life

    To be loved by a horse should fill us with awe, for we hath not deserved it.


    2 members found this post helpful.

  11. #51
    Join Date
    Jul. 14, 2003
    Location
    MA
    Posts
    6,102

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mvp View Post
    Yabbut how did we get all statey on this issue?
    Not sure what you mean here. If you mean why is it a state's right to regulate marriage and not the federal government's right, the answer is federalism. The Federal government really can only regulate things that literally or figuratively "cross state lines." The framers of the constitution, having just split from a monarchy, were afraid to give to much power to a central government.

    If you mean why should any governmental entity get involved in what is basically a religious matter, the answer is that "holy matrimony" has always been different than marriage. "Marriage" is a contract implied in law which has well defined rights and obligations. A marriage that is recognized by the goverment controls the PROPERTY rights of the parties, first and foremost. You have to remember that it was not so long ago that women were considered "chattels," that's right--women were considered property that belonged to their fathers and then their husbands. There were dowrys to consider, as well as support obligations. Everyone seems to forget that so easily, and it wasn't that long ago, historically speaking. It is laughable when people talk about "traditonal marriage" and they gloss over that aspect of it.
    "Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain" ~Friedrich Schiller


    2 members found this post helpful.

  12. #52
    Join Date
    Jul. 14, 2003
    Location
    MA
    Posts
    6,102

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by big_red_ottb View Post
    I believe that the argument for "stateyness" lies in the 9th Amendment, which states that "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."

    Basically, the power to regulate marriage is not given to the Federal government, nor is it prohibited from the states, so it is granted to the states to decide what needs to be done in each state to attain a marriage license.
    I believe the same reasoning is applied re: why states regulate and license professionals.

    However, the argument is that 14th amendment prohibits states from creating and enforcing laws that discriminate against US citizens, and by prohibiting gay marriage, they are violating the Constitution.

    It's very possible that I completely botched that explanation. If I did, someone please call me out on it.
    It's actually the 10th Amendment that established the concept of Federalism, but other than that you are right on.
    "Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain" ~Friedrich Schiller


    1 members found this post helpful.

  13. #53
    Join Date
    May. 5, 2006
    Posts
    2,790

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eclectic Horseman View Post
    If you mean why is it a state's right to regulate marriage and not the federal government's right, the answer is federalism. The Federal government really can only regulate things that literally or figuratively "cross state lines."
    I don't know how to word my question appropriately, but I'll try. Doesn't the current system of patchwork legal acceptance of same-sex marriage impact a couple's ability to cross state line's and have their union recognized equally under the law?

    As it is now, a couple living in Washington state can get married in that state. It is a legally recognized marriage. They have children. They move to Idaho and one member of the couple dies. Their marriage is not recognized. Idaho does not recognize the surviving spouse as the legal parent of the children and gives custody to a "blood relative".

    How does the federal government handle death benefits for surviving spouses and children? If you were in a straight marriage and your spouse dies, you collect SS benefits, and any minor-aged children do as well. Correct? But if you are in a same sex marriage and your spouse dies, you get exactly zero benefits and your children, born into a lawfully wed union, get screwed as well.

    But if the federal government begins to recognize same-sex marriages, but leaves the decision about granting these marriages up to each individual state, how is federal law being applied fairly to all citizens? If you live in a state that recognizes your marriage you are treated as a legally married couple for all federal purposes as well? What if you get married and live in a state that recognizes your marriage? The federal government notes you live in a state where your marriage is recognized, and grants you the full array of benefits available to any other married couple. And then you move to a state that does not recognize your marriage? Does the federal government then send you a notice informing you that you have just lost your "married, filing jointly" tax status, etc.?

    If the federal government is going to treat every married couple equally under the law, those benefits need to be available to every married couple. How is it equal treatment if my marriage is recognized in every state in the country, but the marriage of my gay friends is not? And then, if discrimination under the law is allowable in this instance, why isn't discrimination under the law allowable in other instances as well? Such as discrimination based on race, or gender or class?

    It seems that we have backed ourselves into a corner here. And the type of contortionist behavior required to get out of the corner and still maintain the status quo is impossible. Any argument to reject marriage equality opens up a can of worms.

    I hope SCOTUS does the right thing, and does not decide to just kick the can down the road for some other time to decide.
    Sheilah



  14. #54
    Join Date
    Jul. 14, 2003
    Location
    MA
    Posts
    6,102

    Default

    Sheilah-
    Yes, the reasons that you gave would be the reason for the court to find that DOMA and Prop 8 violate the 14th of amendment of the United States because they violate the equal rights of gays and lesbians. That's what the court did when it struck down anti-miscegenation laws. And, I agree that is what they SHOULD do now.

    I was using shorthand when I said that the federal government can only legislate things that cross state lines. Actually, it is the inter-state commerce clause of the Constitution that allows that legislation, and the qualifications of marriage are not inter-state commerce.

    Having the federal gov't decide the qualifications for marriage, would be as in how old you have to be and whether you can marry your cousin. Or whether to recognize common law marriage or not. The states should continue to legislate the qualifications for marriage in accordance with community values and not as mandated by the federal government. The federal government couldn't or wouldn't enforce a federal marriage license law anyway.

    The states should continue to decide what the qualifications for marriage are, but they should not be allowed to discriminate on the basis of gender just like they cannot discriminate on the basis of race.
    Last edited by Eclectic Horseman; Apr. 2, 2013 at 01:17 PM.
    "Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain" ~Friedrich Schiller



  15. #55
    Join Date
    May. 5, 2006
    Posts
    2,790

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eclectic Horseman View Post
    Sheilah-
    Yes, the reasons that you gave would be the reason for the court to find that DOMA and Prop 8 violate the 14th of amendment of the United States because they violate the equal rights of gays and lesbians. That's what the court did when it struck down anti-miscegenation laws. And, I agree that is what they SHOULD do now.
    Eclectic, thank you for taking the time to answer my question.
    Sheilah



  16. #56
    Join Date
    Aug. 3, 2004
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    3,823

    Default A personal reason

    DOMA being overturned will change my life.

    Currently my wife has a federal job in another state (and we have lots of frequent flyer miles)(luckily it is the neighboring state).

    She cannot cover me on her federal heath care plan even though we are married in CA and she could cover me when she worked in CA (non federal job).

    So as soon as DOMA is overturned, I can move to be with her.
    A man must love a thing very much if he not only practices it without any hope of fame or money, but even practices it without any hope of doing it well.--G. K. Chesterton


    3 members found this post helpful.

  17. #57
    Join Date
    Jul. 20, 2010
    Location
    Texarkana, AR
    Posts
    1,535

    Default

    Well, if gay marriages are allowed, why not polygamy? If all the parties are consenting adults, I don't have a problem with multiple wives or husbands. If polygamy was allowed it would prevent the fundamentalist Mormon sects from having their plural wives apply for welfare for their "out of wedlock" children.



  18. #58
    Join Date
    Jul. 14, 2003
    Location
    MA
    Posts
    6,102

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wireweiners View Post
    Well, if gay marriages are allowed, why not polygamy? If all the parties are consenting adults, I don't have a problem with multiple wives or husbands. If polygamy was allowed it would prevent the fundamentalist Mormon sects from having their plural wives apply for welfare for their "out of wedlock" children.
    I agree, but there are many who argue that polygamy as traditionally practiced is coercive and often involves very young women and sometimes slavery. That is why liberals don't like it and conservative s think it is immoral so I don't see that being legal anytime soon.
    "Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain" ~Friedrich Schiller



  19. #59
    Join Date
    May. 5, 2006
    Posts
    2,790

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wireweiners View Post
    Well, if gay marriages are allowed, why not polygamy?
    Because marriage could be narrowly defined as the legal union between two consenting adults, with no mention of gender?
    Sheilah



  20. #60
    Join Date
    Jul. 14, 2003
    Location
    MA
    Posts
    6,102

    Default

    Yes, that would not violate equal protection Sheilah. But if the court decided on the grounds of federalism, then some state could decide that polygamy is okay. And the federal government couldn't stop it. That's why precedent is so important and the court has to be really careful.
    "Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain" ~Friedrich Schiller


    1 members found this post helpful.

Similar Threads

  1. What is your marriage like?
    By halter broke in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: Dec. 26, 2012, 04:32 PM
  2. New Movie About the Fight for Equality by Women Jockies
    By Mike Matson in forum Off Course
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: Jul. 17, 2011, 01:34 PM
  3. Marriage Proposal
    By Gray Horse H/J in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: May. 29, 2011, 01:42 PM
  4. Replies: 3
    Last Post: Jan. 31, 2011, 08:57 AM
  5. A small step for marriage equality
    By lizathenag in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: Aug. 6, 2010, 01:04 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •