• 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.

My Opinion on Gay Marriage

Excellent response.. but only half the answer.
What happens if my sister and cousin are of age?

On second thought about jobs - wasn't it colorado that is allowed to fire based on sexual orientation?
 
vauge said:
Excellent response.. but only half the answer.
What happens if my sister and cousin are of age?
If it were up to me, I say let 'em. Now, looking for laws to know what's going on, I found a website called "CUDDLE". An acronym standing for "cousins united to defeat discriminating laws through education". Here are the full details (if you dare) about what states allow it, don't allow it, etc.

Purple= first cousins once removed also prohibited WA NV KY OH

Blue = only double first cousins prohibited NC

Pink = first cousin marriage prohibited OR ID MT WY ND SD NE KS OK MN IA MO AR LA MS MI WV PA MD NH

Green = all cousin mariages legal AK CA NM CO TX AL TN GA SC FL VA NJ NY CT RI MA VT

Yellow = marriage allowed if couple is unable to bear children UT AZ WI IN* IL ME


Doing a quick look at the green and yellow states, marrying your sister (if you're a brother) looks to be legal in AL

*Indiana has the caveat of both being of 65 years old.

I must say I've learned more than I wanted to today. :mrgreen:

vauge said:
On second thought about jobs - wasn't it colorado that is allowed to fire based on sexual orientation?
It looks like right now that is true. But there is a bill on the table to change that:

Date: April 21, 2005

..the Colorado Senate on Wednesday approved a bill that would protect gays and lesbians from workplace discrimination. Senate Bill 28 adds sexual orientation to the factors that Colorado employers cannot consider when making hiring, firing and promotion decisions.
 
shuamort said:
I must say I've learned more than I wanted to today. :mrgreen:
Yuk, lol

Again, you are infallable when it comes to research. You should look into that as a profession. ;)

But, to me you have proven my point even more. Each state offers a license based on what they believe is the best interest. It has nothing to do with "rights".
 
vauge said:
But, to me you have proven my point even more. Each state offers a license based on what they believe is the best interest. It has nothing to do with "rights".
OK, lemme extrapolate your thoughts from that. In your opinion, since marriage isn't a right but a privilege, it's benefits should not be extended to certain classes on a state level. I was thinking about other things that could be considered privileges and not rights.

Driving was the first one that came to mind. Now, let's say a state legislature of X state decided that not only gays should not be allowed to marry, they shouldn't be allowed to have driver's licenses either. Should this be allowed?
 
shuamort said:
OK, lemme extrapolate your thoughts from that. In your opinion, since marriage isn't a right but a privilege, it's benefits should not be extended to certain classes on a state level. I was thinking about other things that could be considered privileges and not rights.

Driving was the first one that came to mind. Now, let's say a state legislature of X state decided that not only gays should not be allowed to marry, they shouldn't be allowed to have driver's licenses either. Should this be allowed?
Yes. The constitution states that all men/women have the same rights. It doesn't guarantee privledges. The same would apply to any type of person or age or whatever.
Folks over the age of 80 in certain states can not get a license. The minimum is either 15 or 16 as well.

If a state said that bald white guys could not get a fishing license - same would apply and it would and should be legal.

It should be left up to the state.
 
vauge said:
Yes. The constitution states that all men/women have the same rights. It doesn't guarantee privledges. The same would apply to any type of person or age or whatever.
Folks over the age of 80 in certain states can not get a license. The minimum is either 15 or 16 as well.

If a state said that bald white guys could not get a fishing license - same would apply and it would and should be legal.

It should be left up to the state.
OK, so let's just say that marriage and driving is all left up to the states. Where does the Full Faith and Credit line get drawn?

US Constitution Article IV states:
Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

Section 2. The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.
 
shuamort said:
OK, so let's just say that marriage and driving is all left up to the states. Where does the Full Faith and Credit line get drawn?

US Constitution Article IV states:
Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

Section 2. The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

Excellent attempt! :)

Does this not say that each state has credit to be be a state and that every state citizen is a federal citizen under the US Constitution?

In short, you are a citizen of a state and that grants you the privilege to be a US citizen.
 
The Full Faith and Credit Clause (was) primarily intended to provide for the continuity between states and enforcement across state lines of non-federal laws, civil claims and court rulings. Without this clause, enforcement of state-to-state extradition, portability of court orders, nationwide recognition of legal status, out-of-state taxation, spousal and child support, and the collection of fees and fines would all be impossible without separate federal action, or a similar action by the other states.

Congress has made several laws, including those on firearms controls and safety standards, employment discrimination, disability, and rights to unionization, and environmental protection, which have all withstood Constitutional attacks on the basis of full faith and credit.
 
Well, if I could hide I would. My ignorance shows through sometimes.

On the same page cited:
"They point out that Congress has made several laws, including those on firearms controls and safety standards, employment discrimination, disability, and rights to unionization, and environmental protection, which have all withstood Constitutional attacks on the basis of full faith and credit."

Are you saying that state laws and privileges should be damned and if one has a law the others must respect it? That is a scary thought. There would be no difference between the states. Instead of calling us "United States" why not just call us "The State of America".
 
vauge said:
Well, if I could hide I would. My ignorance shows through sometimes.

On the same page cited:
"They point out that Congress has made several laws, including those on firearms controls and safety standards, employment discrimination, disability, and rights to unionization, and environmental protection, which have all withstood Constitutional attacks on the basis of full faith and credit."

Are you saying that state laws and privileges should be damned and if one has a law the others must respect it? That is a scary thought. There would be no difference between the states. Instead of calling us "United States" why not just call us "The State of America".
Texas is becoming one of us (one of us. Join us.) Hehe. Here's the thing about the FF&C that was also in the link. It seems to be applied only when brought up and then, well, it seems a bit willy-nilly. OK, less nilly and more willy. The Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of its applicability and use it (no pun intended) judiciously and rather infrequently. Should one state have a law that none of the others have, let's say Massachusetts gay marriage law, and none of the other states have it and in fact have laws against it, the Supreme Court would not enact the FF&C clause to overrule the other 49 States (unless they're being "activists" and setting a precedent) which I would completely disagree with.
 
Back
Top Bottom