Why should not homo couples have the same marriage rights as heteros?

The US Constitution has a full faith and credit clause that requires all contracts viewed as valid in one state to be viewed as valid in others. Therefore, under the Constitution, if a marriage contract is valid in one state and the parties move to another, that contract is valid in the other state. This widens the span of legal recognition.

 

Full faith and credit clause has the well established "Public Policy Exception". For instance states can disregard marriages from other states granted to minors, that contradict with the public policy of the state who chooses to prohibit such marriages.

 

But it's not like the truth of that statement will make anymore of breakthrough now than in the preceding 62 pages in this thread.

When it becomes too obvious that there is no basis for opposition to gay marriage other than sheer hatred of homosexuality and homosexuals, there's nothing more to do.

 

Rahl is delusional. You are from Sweden and so likely don't know anything about marriage in the US, but I can assure you marriage is still limited to men and women in most states. Rahls oh so desperate need to believe it isn't so, doesn't change that fact.

 

31....with 19 where it is open to gay couples. Dixon's "most states" have dwindled down so fast that even he admits he can't cite many court cases less than 5 years old.

Rahl is just predicting the inevitable future. While dixon holds out hope (perhaps even a hope he doesn't really believe in) that nothing is going to "get worse" for him and those like him.

But it is and will.

 

I dwell in the real world. You and rahl dwell in a delusion you have imagined.

 

10 years from now, dixon...what will the "real world" look like?

All those states where gay marriage is legal now...have recinded it? No new states have "fallen"? Previously legal gay marriages have been annulled by the US Supreme Court?

Or....do you see a different future in the year 2024??? I don't believe you've ever said how OPTIMISTIC you are for your viewpoint going into the future, have you???

 

Actually, there is a small bit of truth to what Dixon says regarding other states recognition of marriage, which is a lot more truth than there usually is coming from him. However, true to form he dumbs it down to the lowest common denominator, leaves out inconvenient facts , and presents it as a black and white-case closed issue. Now the whole story

However:

So it may mean that the FFC may apply to same sex married couples from states that enacted marriage equality by judicial action, but not from states where it was legislated. So…….

In addition, there is the big question of the effect of section 2 of DOMA, which is still in effect There are those who think that it will go the way of section 3 and that the effect will be that non-equality states will have to recognize marriages performed elsewhere.

There are questions as to whether or not section 2 was necessary, or whether it was a scare tactic, but the fact is that it was passed before any state had same sex marriage and we really don’t know how things would shake out if and when section 2 is overturned. For my part, I’m not going to put a lot of time and effort is debating and speculating on FFC. It may well be a moot point in the near future when same sex marriage is legal in every state.

Many thanks to Dixon for inspiring and motivating me to write this

 

Your post, obviously.

- - - Updated - - -

On the surface is would seem to be correct, but the Supreme Court has upheld a public policy exception to the FF&C

The correct argument is to continue arguing on 14th amendment grounds. It's won 20 in a row n

 

Pretty funny considering I've demolished every moronic argument you've ever made on this topic. My arguments are 20 and 0 in court while you have lost every case this decade.

It isn't limited to men and women.

 

See, told you. Rahl is delusional.

 

Sorry, but you are factually incorrect.

 

Which is why marriage equality advocates altered their arguments to emphasize the equal protection clause. This argument cannot be refuted by the USSC.

 

Give us a dose of your "reality", dixon......

what will be the legal status of same-sex marriage in the United States in 10 years, in your opinion?

 

We were discussing marriage as it exists now. Both of you seem to have difficulty distinguishing between the real world and the one you have imagined.

 

You are factually incorrect.

 

The end is near. Deal with it.

 

they do....


both gays and straights have the exact same rights concerning marriage.....


just one
not a close relation
opposite gender.


The problem you have isn't that they aren't being treated equally, your problem is they ARE being treated the same concerning the "opposite gender"


considering my wife and I both file taxes individually (not joint)
considering my wife and I both have our own health insurance (neither at a reduced spouse rate)

I don't see exactly what you are complaining about. I "enjoy" nothing more than adam and steve shacking up together do. In fact, if push came to shove, it would cost me more to end my arrangement.

 

And of course that was the line that the STate of Virginia used when it told the Loving's that they could get married.

both blacks and whites have the exact same rights concerning marriage.....


just one
not a close relation
opposite gender.
same race

See- the exact same rights.

The State of Virginia said in essence: "The problem you have isn't that they aren't being treated equally, their problem is that they want to marry someone of the opposite race.