Republicans approve bill to protect same-sex marriage . . . give finger to Constitution and federalism

[WuWei]

@PAmoderate37

Fine by me. I am cool with gay folks getting married and you carrying your gun wherever you want.

A authentic liberal, like me.

Unfortunately, one is real, the other not.

The full faith and credit clause is not being applied evenly.

[FreeAndClear]

We don’t care if they get married we are just gonna write about how much we don’t care…. And how everything those other people do should be in private ….

[JayJay]

@johnwk2

So, you agree no state is required to recognize a marriage between two people of another state if it violates the State’s marriage license requirements?

Don’t make marriage in your state a public act…and then you can stipulate that.

In most states, marriage is a public act so…Full Faith and Credit applies.

Perfectly constitutional.

[JayJay]

What “good reasons”?

Them getting married and enjoying the benefits (taxes and legal) that come with that in no way, shape or form impacts anyone else’s marriage…even if one thinks LGBTQ is wrong.

[gooddad409]

@Nemesis

@thinkingman

@Nemesis

@thinkingman

@Nemesis

Its not about being cool. Same sex couples want to be able to commit to each other just like anyone else.

Why should they be denied that?

no one’s denying anyone the ability to make commitments.

But not just marriage is that it?

right marriage is for.opposite genders for good reasons

sorry about that

they can still be happy together though. no one cares what they do.

Well thank god that opinion is now in the minority. You obviously care if they get married.

Doubtful. When the Defense of Marriage Act was actually being voted on only 1 state voted against it.

In TN 80 percent voted for it.

Actual voting means more than any number of left wing “polls” saying otherwise.

[JayJay]

@FreeAndClear

We don’t care if they get married we are just gonna write about how much we don’t care…. And how everything those other people do should be in private ….

We don’t care what they do…but they can’t call what they do “marriage” because reasons.

[FreeAndClear]

Those are extra rights!

[JayJay]

DOMA was passed 26 years ago.

You seriously think the sentiment for it is the same now as it was then?

[WorldWatcher]

@JayJay

DOMA was passed 26 years ago.

You seriously think the sentiment for it is the same now as it was then?

It’s what some have to cling.

WW

[Publius]

@johnwk2

@Nemesis

Its not about being cool. Same sex couples want to be able to commit to each other just like anyone else.

Why should they be denied that?

A cogent point to be used in favor of adopting a constitutional amendment to accommodate “same sex couples”.

Where does the Constitution accommodate opposite sex couples?

[johnwk2]

@JayJay

@johnwk2

So, you agree no state is required to recognize a marriage between two people of another state if it violates the State’s marriage license requirements?

Don’t make marriage in your state a public act…and then you can stipulate that.

In most states, marriage is a public act so…Full Faith and Credit applies.

Perfectly constitutional.

The Full Faith and Credit Clause always applies where applicable. But it does not require one state to enforce a law or policies [sexual deviant marriages] of another state.

JWK

[WuWei]

You’re wrong. Again.

[johnwk2]

@Publius

@johnwk2

@Nemesis

Its not about being cool. Same sex couples want to be able to commit to each other just like anyone else.

Why should they be denied that?

A cogent point to be used in favor of adopting a constitutional amendment to accommodate “same sex couples”.

Where does the Constitution accommodate opposite sex couples?

Our federal constitution is silent on the subject. In fact, the Tenth Amendment reserves to the States and people therein all authority not delegated to the United States.

The subject you mention is in fact one of the powers retained by the states and people therein under federalism, which is summarized as follows:

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.

The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State." ___ Federalist 45

[WuWei]

public acts
records,
and judicial proceedings

LTC next!

[Publius]

@WuWei

public acts
records,
and judicial proceedings

LTC next!

Lieutenant Colonel? Long Term Care?

[WuWei]

License To Carry

Or even better Constitutional carry.

[johnwk2]

According to you but not the constitutional meaning of the Full Faith and Credit clause.

As Supreme Court Justice Stanley Reed concluded in Griffin v. McCoach (1941), “A state is not required to enforce a law obnoxious to its policy.”

[WuWei]

That is not law. It’s an opinion. Mine is not opinion.

You’re wrong. Again.

[johnwk2]

According to you!

Wrong about what?

[Orygun]

@WuWei

License To Carry

Again- thats a law. Other states don’t have to enforce laws made by other states (see Cannabis). So- not Article 4.

But you have an argument that the 2nd should be applied equally in all 50 states.