• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

New York State Senate passes same sex marriage bill.e

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
a777pilot said:
Ok.

Gay is a choice.

That's OK. Choice is a good thing in a free society. Now that New York has made the union of two men or two women legal, would they still be legal if they moved to, say, Texas?
Click to expand...

Not yet, but soon... don't you worry! Once the Defense of Marriage Act is repealed (either through the courts or by Congress) Texas will likely be forced to accept gay marriages from other states.

We crazy libruls are about to get all gay all over your Flower Mound. (if you know what I mean. *wink*)
 
I am glad they passed this bill, but at the same time I wish it was a bill that took the state out of marriage besides recognizing marriage. If the state would stop ducking regulating our personal lives we wouldn't have to have these hugely worthless political debates on morals.
 
eskimospy said:
Not yet, but soon... don't you worry! Once the Defense of Marriage Act is repealed (either through the courts or by Congress) Texas will likely be forced to accept gay marriages from other states.

We crazy libruls are about to get all gay all over your Flower Mound. (if you know what I mean. *wink*)
Click to expand...

Why and by what method would Texas be forced to accept these unions?
 
bfdd said:
I am glad they passed this bill, but at the same time I wish it was a bill that took the state out of marriage besides recognizing marriage. If the state would stop ducking regulating our personal lives we wouldn't have to have these hugely worthless political debates on morals.
Click to expand...

It's not just "morals" there are legal rights attached to those in the union of people called marriage.
 
a777pilot said:
Gay is a choice.
Click to expand...

No, it's not, generally, though human sexuality is complex.

Go ask any of the gay men who have tried not to be gay, marrying women desperately not wanting to be gay, how much of a choice it is.

But your ignorance affects your politics.
 
a777pilot said:
Why and by what method would Texas be forced to accept these unions?
Click to expand...

Could be one of a bunch of things. The first one that comes to mind would be the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution. This hasn't come up in court before and so it's an unknown, but it's certainly a reasonable interpretation of it.

It's also quite likely that bans on gay marriage will simply be found federally unconstitutional in the relatively near future, which of course would also force Texas to accept them.
 
Craig234 said:
Not really, no. The fact you "don't care" means you are fine with people being denied their civil rights. You wouldn't mind being told you are not allowed to marry, eh?

Maybe you "don't care" about slavery, either -same logic - you just want the anti-slavery movement to 'F off' without getting the rest of us into their issue already.
Click to expand...
Are you stupid? What part of "I wish they'd pass it across the country" didn't you understand?
 
a777pilot said:
It's not just "morals" there are legal rights attached to those in the union of people called marriage.
Click to expand...

Yes it is morals, that's why those legal rights exist and some wanted to prevent other Americans from having them. I don't think there should be any period. Government should have NOTHING to do with marriage. No marriage licenses none of that crap. Marriage is a personal affair and should be private. It has nothing to do with the rest of us, so government should stay the fuck out.
 
eskimospy said:
Could be one of a bunch of things. The first one that comes to mind would be the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution. This hasn't come up in court before and so it's an unknown, but it's certainly a reasonable interpretation of it.
Click to expand...
The thing is that right now there are no current court cases challenging this part of DOMA, they all are more narrowly challenging the part regarding federal recognition of gay marriage in states it is legal. This appears to at least be a way to leave the Supreme Court a future option to de-facto legal gay marriage without overturning a previous court precedent if they rule in the California case challenging Proposition 8 that state bans on gay marriage are constitutional. (Such a ruling would leave open the possibility of a future ruling on the full faith and credit clause instead.)

The reality is legal cases ordinarily take a long time to wind all their way through the court system and then get argued and ruling on by the Supreme Court, so I simply can't see such an outcome happening "soon" by at least the most commonly interpreted definition of that word.
 
a777pilot said:
That doesn't answer the question. How, by what legal method, would Texas be forced, under law, to accept these so called "marriages" as legal in the State of Texas?
Click to expand...
The specific provision would be Article IV, Section 1 of the US Constitution which specifies that US states must recognize "public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_Faith_and_Credit_Clause

There has yet to be a significant court ruling on whether the Federal Defense of Marriage Act violates this section of the constitution if marriages are considered part of this provision. Such a ruling would come close to defacto legalizing gay marriage everywhere in the US since gay couples would merely have to travel to a state where gay marriage is legal and they would suddenly be legally married no matter where they live.

As I noted though, with no cases currently pending on these grounds making their way through the court system, it likely would be awhile before the Supreme Court could possibly come down with such a ruling. (Although a ruling outright stating a government bans on gay marriage are unconstitutional could potentially happen more quickly.)
 
bfdd said:
Yes it is morals, that's why those legal rights exist and some wanted to prevent other Americans from having them. I don't think there should be any period. Government should have NOTHING to do with marriage. No marriage licenses none of that crap. Marriage is a personal affair and should be private. It has nothing to do with the rest of us, so government should stay the fuck out.
Click to expand...

That makes no sense at all. What about the right NOT to testify against one's spouse? What about the ability to adopt? What about medical decisions? The State has a vested interest in the institution of marriage.


...but I like the way you are thinking. Individual freedoms and personal responsibilities are more important than State's rights or wants.
 
a777pilot said:
That makes no sense at all. What about the right NOT to testify against one's spouse? What about the ability to adopt? What about medical decisions? The State has a vested interest in the institution of marriage.


...but I like the way you are thinking. Individual freedoms and personal responsibilities are more important than State's rights or wants.
Click to expand...

Why does the government have to have a say in marriage for those things to work? I am failing to see that connection.
 
a777pilot said:
Ok.

Gay is a choice.

That's OK. Choice is a good thing in a free society. Now that New York has made the union of two men or two women legal, would they still be legal if they moved to, say, Texas?
Click to expand...

Could you tell us the story about how you struggled to make your "choice" on homosexuality vs hetero? Really, do tell us about that time when you even considered being gay... Didn't happen? How was it a choice then?

More and more research is telling us what is already obvious to anyone with a functioning brain...

Proof that it is not a choice- http://www.canada.com/life/Baby+were+born+this/4987565/story.html
 
Aegeon said:
The specific provision would be Article IV, Section 1 of the US Constitution which specifies that US states must recognize "public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_Faith_and_Credit_Clause

There has yet to be a significant court ruling on whether the Federal Defense of Marriage Act violates this section of the constitution if marriages are considered part of this provision. Such a ruling would come close to defacto legalizing gay marriage everywhere in the US since gay couples would merely have to travel to a state where gay marriage is legal and they would suddenly be legally married no matter where they live.

As I noted though, with no cases currently pending on these grounds making their way through the court system, it likely would be awhile before the Supreme Court could possibly come down with such a ruling. (Although a ruling outright stating a government bans on gay marriage are unconstitutional could potentially happen more quickly.)
Click to expand...

I understand that if the Supreme Court rules that a State cannot ban the marriage of like sexes, but the full faith and credit thing does not work. If you hang your argument on that, I would be more than willing to accept it. That would mean that the State of New York would have to recognize a Texas citizen right to carry a concealed weapon. So if I visited New York city I could bring my Browning or Ruger with me. I like it. That would be a good trade, I think.
 
shadow9d9 said:
Could you tell us the story about how you struggled to make your "choice" on homosexuality vs hetero? Really, do tell us about that time when you even considered being gay... Didn't happen? How was it a choice then?

More and more research is telling us what is already obvious to anyone with a functioning brain...

Proof that it is not a choice- http://www.canada.com/life/Baby+were+born+this/4987565/story.html
Click to expand...

Did I say that heterosexualism was a choice?
 
a777pilot said:
Did I say that heterosexualism was a choice?
Click to expand...

You said it was a choice and cited evolution as your proof. Again I would love you to explain why same sex pair bonding exists throughout the animal kingdom if that's the case. Are you saying that animals too make a conscious decision to do so? Please enlighten us. Explain why these animals aren't all extinct for exhibiting this behavior.
 
Last edited:
a777pilot said:
I understand that if the Supreme Court rules that a State cannot ban the marriage of like sexes, but the full faith and credit thing does not work. If you hang your argument on that, I would be more than willing to accept it. That would mean that the State of New York would have to recognize a Texas citizen right to carry a concealed weapon. So if I visited New York city I could bring my Browning or Ruger with me. I like it. That would be a good trade, I think.
Click to expand...

It certainly works for plenty of things. For example, fairly recently the courts ruled that states must recognize adoptions that take place in other states even if they have laws prohibiting it.
 
MomentsofSanity said:
You said it was a choice and cited evolution as your proof. Again I would love you to explain why same sex pair bonding exists throughout the animal kingdom if that's the case. Are you saying that animals too make a conscious decision to do so? Please enlighten us. Explain why these animals aren't all extinct for exhibiting this behavior.
Click to expand...

No, I said that homosexuality was a choice.
 
bfdd said:
Yes it is morals, that's why those legal rights exist and some wanted to prevent other Americans from having them. I don't think there should be any period. Government should have NOTHING to do with marriage. No marriage licenses none of that crap. Marriage is a personal affair and should be private. It has nothing to do with the rest of us, so government should stay the fuck out.
Click to expand...
Government has to be involved with marriage or whatever name it takes on in the future. What happens legally when a marriage dissolves? Assets have to be divided/apportioned. Children have to be assigned custody. All that good stuff.
 
a777pilot said:
No, I said that homosexuality was a choice.
Click to expand...

Should I take that as a refusal to defend your evolution comment then or to explain why same sex relationships happen all the time in nature? I'm more than willing to cite you mountains of examples of same sex pair bonding in animals, birds, hell even insects. Please do explain to me the choice they made.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top