I've been reading about a bazillion blogs and it seems that the only topic people talk about is the California gay marriage state Supreme Court ruling.
I've read people's blogs who would be willing to parade around with a rainbow flag and turn gay just to support all those who prefer their own sex over the opposite and I've read people's posts who just resent homosexuality but put up with it to be nice.
And then there are those who base their thought off of reason and Constitutionality.
I had a rather rough exchange with Ellen Falci about whether the "Full Faith and Credit Clause" could be used to mark the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional. She claimed that because of this provision, it is not constitutional to deny the recognition of gay marriages in states which have passed laws prohibiting them. I said a firm "no."
Let's dissect the following passage, shall we?
"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."
"Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State"
Consistent recognition will be granted to any legal obligation or agreement regardless of location.
"to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State."
Recognition to the collective legislation, public records (marriages), and rulings of all states.
"the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof."
The national legislature can through national laws determine the effect or way in which this legislation, public records, and rulings should be demonstrated, and how they will affect the population.
--
So really, the passage could give Congress leeway to either apply this passage or not.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Ben you have an awful way about your arguments that doesn't just present your case, but attempts to make everyone elses wrong and senseless. I have some news for you I am sure you have heard before: what you think, contrary to your own beliefs, is not FACT. It is simply opinion, and everyone has a right to their own. Now on to the gay marriage discussion. The full faith and credit clause should not be the reason you are arguing over allowing a loving couple to legally unite themselves. If the only thing that comes to your mind with this decision on the line is how it will fit into a document framing our government, I am afraid I have to declare you heartless. Try and think about this a little deeper before you respond with a vicious attack proving you as fact and me as wrong on my blog. You go, California!
I'm speechless.
I wouldn't ever do this to you.
I am completely and utterly against gay marriage. It is not only contradicts nature, but is a disgrace to the word marriage itself. We should not allow anyone to marry a person of the same sex, even if they "love" the other person. WHat's next, allowing someone to marry their sister, or aunt by blood. What if those two people love each other. Do you support allowing those people to wed and if not, isn't that a double standard. I fully support the state laws that prohibit gay marriage. If the courts overrule these laws, then i hope we amend the constitution to outlaw it once and for all.
I'm glad you are arguing Constitutionally Ben. It seems you are more knowledgable about the subject than most. By the way, I'm sure you know who wrote the DOMA. Barr/Root '08!
Post a Comment