Married same-sex couple turned down for spousal benefits

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Originally posted by: chess9
Most constitutional experts think the DOMA won't pass constitutional muster, that is why the constitutional amendment is moving forward. The right wing considers DOMA a stop gap measure only.

The Cali Supreme Court will not be required to reach the DOMA issue if they rule that the Cali constitution forbids discriminating against gays in the issuance of marriage licenses.
-Robert

Your previous post said that all other states could ignore Cali marriages until the CA Supreme Court ruled. That is not true. The DoMA allows states to "ignore" marriages (gay) performed in other states. Nothing the CA Supreme Court does will affect that, it is federal law. And yes it is unconstitutional, IMO, and will probably be struck down if challenged.

Why do you think the law will be struck down? Is there any case that forcing one state to recoginize a marrage that would be invailed if preformed there? Like under age or incest that might not count in one state but does in another?

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Originally posted by: chess9
EagleKeeper:

You actually have it backwards. Cali has a law defining marriage as between a man and a woman. A state's laws are presumed valid until a court says otherwise. So, until the Cali Supremes sing "Straight Shooter" all other states can ignore the "marriage".

-Robert

Doesn't the the Defense of Marriage Act allow states not to recognize (gay) marriages performed in other states? I think the DoMA has to be ruled unconstitutional and revoked before states will be "forced" to recognize all marriages.

Agreed. The DoMA will get challenged if any state allows same-sex marriage. The challenge will probably come from a couple the tied the know in either a CA or MA and then went back to another state and was denied equal rights.

 

[chess9]

UQ:

I'd like to think that most State Supreme Courts would find the infirmities in DOMA compelling enough to reject its constitutionality. (It flies in the face of Loving v. Virginia, so there is ample U.S. Supreme Court opinion to do so.) I will grant that some state Supreme Courts might try to "distinguish" DOMA from prior rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court, but without a constitutional amendment I feel pretty confident that even this U.S. Supreme Court wouldn't overrule or distinguish Loving to save DOMA. I didn't mean to imply that states would necessarily ignore DOMA when presented with a valid gay marriage. Most states will probably interpose DOMA in an attempt to reject the license. Such efforts should fail, in my view.

-Robert

 

[UltraQuiet]

Why do you think the law will be struck down? Is there any case that forcing one state to recoginize a marrage that would be invailed if preformed there? Like under age or incest that might not count in one state but does in another?

1. The outlawing of gay marriages violates the basic human rights our country was founded on and that are guaranteed in the Constitution.

2. Almost every states marriage laws are different (blood work, age, etc) but all are recognized nationally as being valid, I think because the Constitution requires states to recognize each others laws. The DoMA allows them to not recognize the marriages performed in another state which is unconstitutional, IMO, and will probably be found as such if it ever reaches the USSC.

 

[chess9]

EK:

She'd be right about that. 🙂

-Robert

 

[chess9]

Spencer:

Google Loving v. Virginia. The U.S. Supreme Court, about 1968-69, or thereabouts, struck down the anti-miscegenation statute of Virginia.

-Robert

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: chess9
Spencer:

Google Loving v. Virginia. The U.S. Supreme Court, about 1968-69, or thereabouts, struck down the anti-miscegenation statute of Virginia.

-Robert

Yes and as any good conservative Republican like me knows, if the court rules against gays it will reverse Loving and re-institute slavery and we will have to find another Lincoln to fight another civil war. That's the real slippery slope a constitutional amendment to ban gays from marriage will have us sliding down, unless, in the off chance, slippery slope arguments are a distraction designed to appeal to fear rather than logic and mean little intellectually and pertinently to the discussion at hand.

 

[chess9]

Moonbeam:

In all fairness to the traditionalists I don't think it will go that far. Limiting gays to civil unions is one thing, but reinstituting slavery would precipitate civil war, or I hope it would.

Regardless, sooner or later gays will receive the right to marry just as straights. Progress is inevitable. 🙂

-Robert

 

[Moonbeam]

Progress is inevitable.

Hehe, and you say Bush will win the election. I'm not sure if your comment inspires me to the confidence it intended. 😀

I hope you realize that I don't see slavery in the offing any more than I do the collapse of civilization of gays can marry. I was taking a poke at the absurdity of the slope arguments we get here so often, although the notion of marrying my horse does have a certain appeal. I'm sure it would be a kick.

 

[chess9]

Moonbeam:

Ok. 🙂 You know, sometimes one needs special radar to get your meaning. 🙂

-Robert

 

[LordMagnusKain]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: chess9
EK:

The Mayor of SF is relying upon the state statute being unconstitutional. The problem is the state Supreme Court is the final arbiter of that issue and they haven't ruled. The corrollary in Federal Jurisprudence is that the U.S. Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what is constitutional. The U.S. Constitution means what they say it means. Ditto for the Cali Supremes.

-Robert

Well the rights we have are inalienable and can't be taken even by the court. It is the right of the people to alter and abolish our government and to institute new government as to how we feel it will best provide for our safety and happiness.

viva la gay-revolution!

wait.. how is spousal benefits for homosexual lovers an inalienable human right?

The fact that you ask and have to ask indicates that you aren't capable of seeing the answer which is ... common decency

so, as per the inalienable human right of 'common decency' we must proved all who say they are lovers with the benefits of a married heterosexual couple.

This is a very weak argument, the lack of logic first show by your need for an irrational personal attack to try and prove it.

 

[Officerdown]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Officerdown

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Officerdown

Originally posted by: Spencer278
If they give the benefits to different-sex couples why shouldn't they give it to same sex-couples.

Stability?That?s why. You open the door for one group you open it for others. Where does it stop?

Nope, you're on the worng slope. You close the door to one group and pretty soon we're back to holding slaves. You just don't see things right.

Not really. I don't think we are any closer to holding slaves. Just leave things as is. Where do you get slaves involved with marriage? So if we keep marriage as is and not change the law to legalize it for every group out there, we'll go back to having slaves? Marriage has been around longer than government, which may surprise Liberals. Government needs to stand for an orderly society. So because marriage has been around forever, after the War Between the States, I don't think we ever took a step back to slavery. Do you?

Jeepers creepers, it's not rocket science. First you declare that gays can't marry, then interracial couples, then you start revoking the right of women to vote and blacks to be free. It's a slippery slope when you start limiting rights. Marriage is as old as bipedalism and the need to care for a helpless infant with a huge brain that takes years to develop.

I'm sorry I'm not getting this but you keep saying we will take a step back if we don't change the definition of marriage? I guarantee that if we don't change the definition of marriage we won't go back to holding slaves.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: chess9
Moonbeam:

Ok. 🙂 You know, sometimes one needs special radar to get your meaning. 🙂

-Robert

Perhaps because I am not particularly concerned with being misunderstood, it being something of a way of life for me, and also because of two other things, namely that what people need, generally more than anything else, is to see themselves and that that can best happen in a mirror, I will often respond to somebodies absurd point of view with a homologous absurdity. In the process of deconstructing my nonsense they will use and sharpen the same tools they will need to deconstruct themselves.

 

[Moonbeam]

I'm sorry I'm not getting this but you keep saying we will take a step back if we don't change the definition of marriage? I guarantee that if we don't change the definition of marriage we won't go back to holding slaves.
--------------------
OK, well thanks. In that case I promise not to marry my horse when we do change the definition.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: chess9
EK:

The Mayor of SF is relying upon the state statute being unconstitutional. The problem is the state Supreme Court is the final arbiter of that issue and they haven't ruled. The corrollary in Federal Jurisprudence is that the U.S. Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what is constitutional. The U.S. Constitution means what they say it means. Ditto for the Cali Supremes.

-Robert

Well the rights we have are inalienable and can't be taken even by the court. It is the right of the people to alter and abolish our government and to institute new government as to how we feel it will best provide for our safety and happiness.

viva la gay-revolution!

wait.. how is spousal benefits for homosexual lovers an inalienable human right?

The fact that you ask and have to ask indicates that you aren't capable of seeing the answer which is ... common decency

so, as per the inalienable human right of 'common decency' we must proved all who say they are lovers with the benefits of a married heterosexual couple.

This is a very weak argument, the lack of logic first show by your need for an irrational personal attack to try and prove it.

You are no
fun KMK, I have to translate everything you say into English. The following sentence makes no sense at all:

so, as per the inalienable human right of 'common decency' we must proved all who say they are lovers with the benefits of a married heterosexual couple.

Everybody makes mistakes and everybody could probably be more exact in what they wish to say, but you are terrible. Proof read your posts, please. I don't want to have to take wild guesses at what you mean. If you are a non native speaker please state as much and I may take the time to attempt a translation and ask if it's what you meant. But if you wish to be as slpooy as you are with your words I'm afraid I can't help but infer that you are as sloppy in your thinking. That won't encourage me to pay much attention to what you say.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

But if you wish to be as slpooy as you are with your words I'm afraid I can't help but infer that you are as sloppy in your thinking.

so you stick with the irational atacks on me as a person.. have you read the forum rules?

so, as per the inalienable human right of 'common decency' we must proved all who say they are lovers with the benefits of a married heterosexual couple.

This is a very weak argument, the lack of logic first show by your need for an irrational personal attack to try and prove it.

I used to post w/out using a spell check as well;

you're argument is that those calling themselves homosexual lovers deserve spousal benefits equal to that of married heterosexuals. You say this view is logical because of inalienable human rights. When asked what inalienable human right you indicated 'common decency' was the specific right.

I don't agree that spousal benefits for same-sex lovers equaling that of married heterosexuals is 'common decency': what is 'common' and what is 'decent' are both highly singular to the individual. To make laws based on the minority's view on what 'common decency' is, over the super-majority's view, is tyranny.

As such i reject both your argument, and the basis of your argument. If you'll give me some logical reasons for your view I'll give it full consideration. Unfortunately thus far logical justifications aren't forth coming as you've relied entirely on name-calling and attacking the person making the argument instead of the argument itself.

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Why do you think the law will be struck down? Is there any case that forcing one state to recoginize a marrage that would be invailed if preformed there? Like under age or incest that might not count in one state but does in another?

1. The outlawing of gay marriages violates the basic human rights our country was founded on and that are guaranteed in the Constitution.

2. Almost every states marriage laws are different (blood work, age, etc) but all are recognized nationally as being valid, I think because the Constitution requires states to recognize each others laws. The DoMA allows them to not recognize the marriages performed in another state which is unconstitutional, IMO, and will probably be found as such if it ever reaches the USSC.

1. Has nothing to do with the DoMA and neither does Loving v. Virginia. Loving v. Virginia strikes down the antimiscegenation law not of the bases that other states don't have the law but it violates the Constitution.

2. Every state has different requirement for a drives licenses but if I get a drivers licenses to drive in Vermont I can drive every where unless I'm under 17. If I'm under 17 and drive in NYC I'm breaking the law because to get a valid licenses to drive in NYC you have to be 17. Other states only have to recognize laws if they have a similar law.

 

[chess9]

Spencer:

Driving is a privilege, not a right. Marriage is an inalienable right.

And, you are dead wrong about Loving, assuming I understand your bollixed syntax.

-Robert

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: chess9
Spencer:

Driving is a privilege, not a right. Marriage is an inalienable right.

And, you are dead wrong about Loving, assuming I understand your bollixed syntax.

-Robert

LOVING ET UX. v. VIRGINIA
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
388 U.S. 1
June 12, 1967, Decided
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WARREN delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case presents a constitutional question never addressed by this Court: whether a statutory scheme adopted by the State of Virginia to prevent marriages between persons solely on the basis of racial classifications violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. For reasons which seem to us to reflect the central meaning of those constitutional commands, we conclude that these statutes cannot stand consistently with the Fourteenth Amendment.

Loving has nothing to do with the DoMA. Loving could be used baises for claiming the anti-gay marriage laws violate the 14th Amendment but that has little to do with the DoMA.

Marriage is not a right. A state could chose to stop issueing marriages licenses to everyone if they wanted to. Show a case where a state had to recongize a marriage that was illegal in their state.

 

[Moonbeam]

LMK quoting me: "But if you wish to be as slpooy as you are with your words I'm afraid I can't help but infer that you are as sloppy in your thinking. [/quote] so you stick with the irational atacks on me as a person.. have you read the forum rules

M: I was hoping some error would get through. I'm a bit dyslexic and lucky to be able to read, as far as I'm concerned, but it's you grammar and how you use words that's trying to me. I don't mind the occasional error even mine. The sentence I quoted, however, makes no sense and I'm tired of trying to figure out what you may have meant. But the question of inalienable rights interests me so I will try to make sense of your latest. It doesn't on first read look too bad.

LMK: so, as per the inalienable human right of 'common decency' we must proved all who say they are lovers with the benefits of a married heterosexual couple.

M: That sentence makes no sense as I told you already.

LMK: This is a very weak argument, the lack of logic first show by your need for an irrational personal attack to try and prove it

M: This doesn't make sense either. It is gibberish. Sorry

LMK: I used to post w/out using a spell check as well

M: Spelling is not the problem.

LMK: you're argument is that those calling themselves homosexual lovers deserve spousal benefits equal to that of married heterosexuals. You say this view is logical because of inalienable human rights. When asked what inalienable human right you indicated 'common decency' was the specific right.

M: No I said that if you had any common decency you wouldn't need to ask which right because you would feel that it is simply a matter of fair play.

LMK: I don't agree that spousal benefits for same-sex lovers equaling that of married heterosexuals is 'common decency'

M: I know, how could you? You are a bigot. You have an irrational dislike of homosexuality based on a religious teaching that claims to be the absolute truth because it claims to be the absolute truth. That amounts to you attempting to impose a religious view on people who don't share in your delusion, however real it is to you. You have no logical reason for your opinion except your belief in religion. Be careful. My religion says people like you are too stupid to be allowed to breed. 😉

LMK: imposing a religious view on: what is 'common' and what is 'decent' are both highly singular to the individual.

M: This makes no sense either but I think I know what you mean. I think you mean that what each person thinks is common and what each thinks is decent is particular to that individual.

M: So what. If truth is inalienable there is just one truth and most people don't know what it is. We claim that truth is inalienable in our society and we created a government to apply that truth to society. We said, no religious doctrine as law. We said the Supreme Court will have the final say in government over what will be adjudicated to be inalienable.

LMK: To make laws based on the minority's view on what 'common decency' is, over the super-majority's view, is tyranny.

M: That's right. That's the tyranny you buy into by being an American. Don't like it than move out or change the Constitution. You are pissed off that people 200 years ago had your number and put you in a box for the safety of the rest of us just like they did me. I can't gas you as inferior without going to jail. I don't like it, but I have to live under the law if I want to function in society.

LMK: As such i reject both your argument, and the basis of your argument.

M: Reject anything you want but you are still anti-American and a bigot.

LMK: If you'll give me some logical reasons for your view I'll give it full consideration.

M: The logic is that I'm going to let you live. 😀

LMK: Unfortunately thus far logical justifications aren't forth coming as you've relied entirely on name-calling and attacking the person making the argument instead of the argument itself.

M: Thus far I have repeatedly demolished your arguments only to have you repeat them again and again. That happens because you are as blind as a bigot. I just identified you as what you are. That's not calling you names.

Opinions based on Biblical text are totally worthless in the eyes of the law. You need to find yourself a theocracy to live under, but not mine because there you'd be removed as a matter of sanitation.

 

[chess9]

Spencer:

Good grief...how old are you?

Edit: Ok, I felt badly for blowing you off because of your age so I came back. Go read any of the many discussions to be found on the web. You might also want to read the sodomy case Lawrence, and the Romer case. This is a complex matter, but if Cali or Mass rule in favor of gay marriage I have no doubt that the U.S. Supreme Court will hold the other states must give full faith and credit to marriages solemnized in those states. Why do you think the constitutional amendment is being proposed?

🙂

-Robert

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: chess9
Spencer:

Good grief...how old are you?

Edit: Ok, I felt badly for blowing you off because of your age so I came back. Go read any of the many discussions to be found on the web. You might also want to read the sodomy case Lawrence, and the Romer case. This is a complex matter, but if Cali or Mass rule in favor of gay marriage I have no doubt that the U.S. Supreme Court will hold the other states must give full faith and credit to marriages solemnized in those states. Why do you think the constitutional amendment is being proposed?

🙂

-Robert

The reason for the constitutional amendment is to keep Mass or Cali in line. If the Supreme Court rules in favor of gay marriage it will not be about other states having to give full faith and credit to marriages solemnized in other states but it will be on 14th amendment issues.

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.

--U.S. Constitution: Article IV Section 1.

Lets say a legal gay marrage is preformed in mass. The people then move to texas. Texas has to give full faith and credit to the marrage but in Texas there is no law giving benifets to gay marrage so the state by doing nothing has given full faith and credit.

 

[chess9]

Spencer:

I'm not so sure the U.S. Supreme Court will embrace the 14th Amendment argument. I think they should, but the 14th Amendment analysis is tied into race in Loving, which may not be where they go. They may follow Lawrence and simply expand on it.

Congress isn't as worried about Cali and Mass as the U.S. Supreme Court. The Lawrence case when read with Loving and Romer make them very uneasy. The only way to keep states from having to recognize gay marriages performed in other states is by constitutional amendment. The Full Faith and Credit Clause ain't goin' nowhere and DOMA simply ignored it, which won't wash.

You are walking half way to the wall each time. A few more posts and you'll have it. 🙂

-Robert

 

[Moonbeam]

If Cali legally marries a gay couple Texas will have to recognize them as married and if texas pays benefits to straight couples they will have to pay to gays. If you just think with your heart a bit and leave bigotry behind things will be clearer.

 

[chess9]

Moonbeam:

Think with your heart and you will have heartache, but no need for aspirin. 🙂

-Robert, the cynic.