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.vauge said:Excellent response.. but only half the answer.
What happens if my sister and cousin are of age?
It looks like right now that is true. But there is a bill on the table to change that:vauge said:On second thought about jobs - wasn't it colorado that is allowed to fire based on sexual orientation?
Yuk, lolshuamort said:I must say I've learned more than I wanted to today. :mrgreen:
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.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".
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.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?
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?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.
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.
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.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".
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?