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

[WorldWatcher]

@WuWei

@Orygun

@WuWei

It’s a license. No different.

Different states don’t honor many kinds of licenses from other states. An example would be medical licenses. You cant practice across state lines.

Marriages, adoptions, legal agreements via divorce- these are things covered by the 4th.

I know what they do. I already said it is being applied unevenly.

You are trying to rationalize cherry-picking.

Homosexual marriage meets the criteria for FF&C. So do LTC. I have an even stronger case than for marriage. The BGC are all conducted through the Centgov system.

You seem to be skipping the point that Congress has exercised an enumerated power.

I have no problem with licenses to carry being available, just ask Congress to exercise the “effect thereof” option and let the debate begin.

WW

[WuWei]

Done. 2nd Amendment.

[johnwk2]

@WuWei

No, just read it.

Read it and what? I know and attach a speculative meaning to the provision and not what was originally agreed to.

JWK

Those who reject abiding by the text of our Constitution, and the intentions and beliefs under which it was agree to, as documented from historical records ___ its framing and ratification debates which give context to its text ___ wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

[Supreme_War_Pig]

@johnwk2

And attach a speculative meaning to the provision and not what was originally agreed to?

There’s no speculation about it. The text clearly states that congress can make laws around how the faith and credit is applied.

[johnwk2]

@Supreme_War_Pig

@johnwk2

And attach a speculative meaning to the provision and not what was originally agreed to?

There’s no speculation about it. The text clearly states that congress can make laws around how the faith and credit is applied.

What it actually states is:

Section 1 Full Faith and Credit Clause: *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.

[Supreme_War_Pig]

Precisely

[johnwk2]

I am encouraged you agree.

[WuWei]

No, read it and do what it says.

[WuWei]

Is marriage:

A public Acts?
A public Records?
and judicial Proceedings? Civil marriage is.

Check
Check
Check

Criteria met.

[johnwk2]

Criteria met so Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which, e.g., a particular state’s marriage license shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

[Eagle-Keeper]

@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?

I thought that LGBTQ people were supposed to be so progressive? Why the ■■■■ would they want to be a part of such a dying institution?

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2011/12/14/is-marriage-a-dying-institution

[SpacemanSpiff]

@johnwk2

@Safiel

@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?

Actually, they DO have to recognize them. They simply don’t have to issue licenses if they don’t want to. But if somebody is married in another State, they must recognize it.

There is no provision in our Federal Constitution requiring one state to practice and enforce the conditions of another State’s licenses. As a matter of fact, the Tenth Amendment guarantees each state the authority to set its own conditions for the issuances and enforcement of licenses ___ the only exception being, that no state may issue a license which makes a distinction based upon race, color or previous condition of slavery.

JWK

What makes a Supreme Court opinion legitimate is when it is in harmony with the text of our Constitution and its documented legislative intent which gives context to its text.

You want’em to look at Loving v Virginia next?

[johnwk2]

Why would I want anyone to do that? It is crystal clear that our federal constitution forbids distinctions in law being based upon race.

[WorldWatcher]

@SpacemanSpiff

You want’em to look at Loving v Virginia next?

I don’t think Justice Ginni Thomas will want that one reviewed.

WW

[Publius]

@johnwk2

Criteria met so Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which, e.g., a particular state’s marriage license shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Done. And?

[SpacemanSpiff]

@johnwk2

Why would I want anyone to do that? It is crystal clear that our federal constitution forbids distinctions in law being based upon race.

Really? Where? I don’t see anything in the constitution about a state having to recognize an interracial marriage.

[Publius]

@Eagle-Keeper

@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?

I thought that LGBTQ people were supposed to be so progressive? Why the ■■■■ would they want to be a part of such a dying institution?

Is Marriage a Dying Institution?

Taxes, inheritances, property rights, stuff like that, I would guess.

[WorldWatcher]

@Publius

@Eagle-Keeper

@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?

I thought that LGBTQ people were supposed to be so progressive? Why the ■■■■ would they want to be a part of such a dying institution?

Is Marriage a Dying Institution?

Taxes, inheritances, property rights, stuff like that, I would guess.

You left out a public statement of commitment to their chosen partner.

WW

[johnwk2]

You do not see anything in the Constitution forbidding distinction in law being based upon race?

One of the primary intentions and purposes of the 14th Amendment was to forbid distinctions is law based upon race.

“Its whole effect is not to confer or regulate rights, but to require that whatever of these enumerated rights and obligations are imposed by State laws shall be for and upon all citizens alike without distinctions based on race or former condition of slavery…It permits the States to say that the wife may not testify, sue or contract. It makes no law as to this. Its whole effect is to require that whatever rights as to each of the enumerated civil (not political) matters the States may confer upon one race or color of the citizens shall be held by all races in equality…It does not prohibit you from discriminating between citizens of the same race, or of different races, as to what their rights to testify, to inherit &c. shall be. But if you do discriminate, it must not be on account of race, color or former conditions of slavery. That is all. If you permit a white man who is an infidel to testify, so you must a colored infidel. Self-evidently this is the whole effect of this first section. It secures-not to all citizens, but to all races as races who are citizens- equality of protection in those enumerated civil rights which the States may deem proper to confer upon any race.” ___ SEE: Representative Shallabarger, a supporter of the amendment Congressional Globe, 1866, page 1293

[johnwk2]

Exactly. Is there an “and”?