• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

gay marrage everywhare?

should non gay states have to reconize gay marrage

  • yes

    Votes: 27 62.8%

  • no

    Votes: 13 30.2%

  • other

    Votes: 3 7.0%
  • Total voters
    43
F

flaherty12

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 25, 2006
Messages
112
Reaction score
3
Location
florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
The constitution clearly states in article 4, section 1 that Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.

So does a gay marrage in massachuttets have to be reconized by other states?
 
Nojust no but hell no.........The will of the people in every state should define marriage.........Why should another state recognize what some activist judges in Mass. ruled as marriage.......
 
LOL
Non gay states? I heard Massachusetts asked Vermont out on a date. :lol:
 
Navy Pride said:
Nojust no but hell no.........The will of the people in every state should define marriage.........Why should another state recognize what some activist judges in Mass. ruled as marriage.......
Click to expand...

but if you don't reconize the marrages, arent you violating the constitution?
 
This is a joke that has gone too far. There is nothing "gay" about a homosexual.. It is a type of sickness - something, and no-one knows exactly what it is , is not right in the head..
They should be pitied and tolerated, but the institution of marriage must NOT be sullied...
And people should learn to edit and spell..:rofl
 
earthworm said:
This is a joke that has gone too far. There is nothing "gay" about a homosexual.. It is a type of sickness - something, and no-one knows exactly what it is , is not right in the head..
They should be pitied and tolerated, but the institution of marriage must NOT be sullied...
And people should learn to edit and spell..:rofl
Click to expand...

And would you like to reference how they are sick and ahhh how did you put it? Yes yes..."not right in the head". How clinical. And if you don't want marriage sullied, perhaps you should be railing against the ways it is actually BEING sullied already...all by heterosexuals. A 50 percent divorce rate...a 55 hour just for fun marriage...infidelity rates higher than ever before...shall I continue?

Maybe I wanna crack open a beer for this because your response is sure to be a hoot. :lol:
 
earthworm said:
This is a joke that has gone too far. There is nothing "gay" about a homosexual.. It is a type of sickness - something, and no-one knows exactly what it is , is not right in the head..
They should be pitied and tolerated, but the institution of marriage must NOT be sullied...
And people should learn to edit and spell..:rofl
Click to expand...

i understand that homosexuals brains are similar to the oppisite sex, but that is not the question. the question is is it unconstitutional to not recognize a gay marrage if they move out of the state.
 
earthworm said:
This is a joke that has gone too far. There is nothing "gay" about a homosexual.. It is a type of sickness - something, and no-one knows exactly what it is , is not right in the head..
They should be pitied and tolerated, but the institution of marriage must NOT be sullied...
And people should learn to edit and spell..:rofl
Click to expand...

You are the one who should be pitied.
 
"gay marrage everywhare"
Click to expand...

For some reason, this sounds like the title of a Dr. Seuss book.

"From near to far, from here to there,
gay marrages are everywhare."


:lol:
 
1069 said:
For some reason, this sounds like the title of a Dr. Seuss book.

"From near to far, from here to there,
gay marrages are everywhare."


:lol:
Click to expand...

i needed to make a title that people would look at, and say "that looks interesting!" :bootyshake
 
flaherty12 said:
i needed to make a title that people would look at, and say "that looks interesting!" :bootyshake
Click to expand...

Don't you wave your arse at me, you impudent youngster! :?
 
jallman said:
And would you like to reference how they are sick and ahhh how did you put it? Yes yes..."not right in the head". How clinical. And if you don't want marriage sullied, perhaps you should be railing against the ways it is actually BEING sullied already...all by heterosexuals. A 50 percent divorce rate...a 55 hour just for fun marriage...infidelity rates higher than ever before...shall I continue?

Maybe I wanna crack open a beer for this because your response is sure to be a hoot. :lol:
Click to expand...

See I told you so. You're just not right in the head........:lamo
 
earthworm said:
This is a joke that has gone too far. There is nothing "gay" about a homosexual.. It is a type of sickness - something, and no-one knows exactly what it is , is not right in the head..
They should be pitied and tolerated, but the institution of marriage must NOT be sullied...
And people should learn to edit and spell..:rofl
Click to expand...

Two possibilities:
1) You were kidding and being sarcastic with this post.
2) You were serious with this post.

If it is #1, your sarcasm was poorly done. You might choose to use more and different emoticons to assist in your communication.

If it is #2, the post was a bigoted, unsubstantiated, ridiculous statement that could be dismantled, destroyed, and disintegrated easily by me or several other posters.

So which is it?
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Two possibilities:
1) You were kidding and being sarcastic with this post.
2) You were serious with this post.

If it is #1, your sarcasm was poorly done. You might choose to use more and different emoticons to assist in your communication.

If it is #2, the post was a bigoted, unsubstantiated, ridiculous statement that could be dismantled, destroyed, and disintegrated easily by me or several other posters.

So which is it?
Click to expand...

im pretty sure he was being serious
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Two possibilities:
1) You were kidding and being sarcastic with this post.
2) You were serious with this post.

If it is #1, your sarcasm was poorly done. You might choose to use more and different emoticons to assist in your communication.

If it is #2, the post was a bigoted, unsubstantiated, ridiculous statement that could be dismantled, destroyed, and disintegrated easily by me or several other posters.

So which is it?
Click to expand...

I'll answer for him as soon as Merv is over.......


Ok its over. Monty,I pick door number 3..........:lamo
 
flaherty12 said:
but if you don't reconize the marrages, arent you violating the constitution?
Click to expand...

Nope your not.............Gays have the same right you do.......They want a special right......So do Polygamysts....
 
Navy Pride said:
Nope your not.............Gays have the same right you do.......They want a special right......So do Polygamysts....
Click to expand...

navy, if a gay couple gets married in massachusettes, than according to article 4,section one of the constitution, other states have to rocognize the legal contract. :argue
 
flaherty12 said:
navy, if a gay couple gets married in massachusettes, than according to article 4,section one of the constitution, other states have to rocognize the legal contract. :argue
Click to expand...

Wrong, if that was true it would have already been to the SCOTUS.....At this point no other state has to recognize a gay marriage from Mass..........

Actually the word marriage appears no where in the U.S. Constitution.......
 
Navy Pride said:
Wrong, if that was true it would have already been to the SCOTUS.....At this point no other state has to recognize a gay marriage from Mass..........

Actually the word marriage appears no where in the U.S. Constitution.......
Click to expand...

navy, is marraige a legal contract?
because if it is, than full faith and credit should apply(a contract legal in one state is legal in all states(article 4 section 1 of the CONSTITUTION))
so it has nothing to do with marrage being in the constitution, it has to do with the contract in mass.. being recognized in other states because the constitution says it should.

i dont agree with gay marrage, but i do agree with upholding the people of this countrys constitutional rights.
 
flaherty12 said:
navy, is marraige a legal contract?
because if it is, than full faith and credit should apply(a contract legal in one state is legal in all states(article 4 section 1 of the CONSTITUTION))
so it has nothing to do with marrage being in the constitution, it has to do with the contract in mass.. being recognized in other states because the constitution says it should.

i dont agree with gay marrage, but i do agree with upholding the people of this countrys constitutional rights.
Click to expand...

*hand in the air*
Oh, oh, memememe!

:prof
A marriage license is a legal contract between the persons marrying (party 1) and the State (party 2).

If the license ascends to the federal level, which it does, than gay marriage must be recognized by all states when legally issued by one state.

:comp:
Article 4 section 1 of the Constitution would not force a state to start issuing GM licinses, however, untill "sexual orientation" is added to the official list of federaly protected classes. So, South Dakota would have to recognize an out-of-state gay union, but could still refrain from issuing gay unions itself. Also, South Dakota would not be required to provide divorce for a gay union, refering the married couple to the jurisdiction that married them.

In order for that last complication to be legal, however, South Dakota would have to refer all out-of-state unions to their respective states where the marriage license was issued.

In that case, my wife and I would have to go back to Alameda county in CA in order to divorce. Come to think of it, my parents first tried to divorce in Oklahoma, but were told that they would have to go back to CA to divorce, since they attained their marriage license in CA. That was in the mid 80's, though.






......and since more than 2 people can sign any other contract, and GM folks undermine the states authority to regulate its own permissions.......sorry but I had to toss in my slippery-slope®.
 
Last edited:
Kandahar said:
You are the one who should be pitied.
Click to expand...

Do we have to?:mrgreen:


Main topic:

What exactly do you think is wrong with gay marriage, people opposed?

Is it that you don't think it is natural?

Do you think it is morally wrong?

How is allowing homosexuals to marry giving them "special rights"?
 
Why would non-gay people care? A few Religious fanatics aside, no hetero friend of mine has ever expressed any concern about gay marriage. I fail to see how gay couples impact my hetero life in any way. I guess I would prefer there be more bi-sexual female couples around who would do the freaky with me, but other than that, it is a non-issue.
BTW, so far, I have found no bi-sexual female couples who want to do the freaky with me. Guess I will have to settle for what I have.....the Al Bundy life. (except for the selling of shoes):lol:
 
Edify_Always_In_All_Ways said:
Do we have to?:mrgreen:


Main topic:

What exactly do you think is wrong with gay marriage, people opposed?

Is it that you don't think it is natural?

Do you think it is morally wrong?

How is allowing homosexuals to marry giving them "special rights"?
Click to expand...

Oh why not :beatdeadhorse

What exactly do you think is wrong with gay marriage, people opposed? Is it that you don't think it is natural? Do you think it is morally wrong?
Click to expand...

Conspiratorially?
It's a step that continues the degradation of a societaly stabilizing pillar. Society needs to be placed in a state of flux, in the absence of "normalcy", in order to forward the New World Order.

Morally?
God says no, so it's wrong. The why is irrelevant unless you first obligate yourself to obeying God's authority.

Legaly?
See below.

How is allowing homosexuals to marry giving them "special rights"?
Click to expand...

...because the "Fundamental Right" for someone to marry a person of the same gender does not exist, so there can be no claim of discrimination; therefore gay marriage is not an issue of seeking equality.

Case in point:

Lewis and Winslow -v- Harris
4. Times and attitudes have changed. There has been a developing understanding that discrimination against gays and lesbians is no longer acceptable in this State. On the federal level, the United States Supreme Court has struck down laws that have unconstitutionally targeted gays and lesbians for disparate treatment. Although plaintiffs rely on the federal cases to support the argument that they have a fundamental right to marry under our State Constitution, those cases fall far short of establishing a fundamental right to same-sex marriage "deeply rooted in the traditions, history, and conscience of the people of this State." Despite the rich diversity of this State, the tolerance and goodness of its people, and the many recent advances made by gays and lesbians toward achieving social acceptance and equality under the law, the Court cannot find that the right to same-sex marriage is a fundamental right under our constitution. (pp. 28-33)
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom