Law School Discussion

Same sex marriage - the battle spreads

jgruber

Re: Same sex marriage - the battle spreads
« Reply #20 on: August 04, 2004, 06:33:52 PM »
if states don't have to accept the licenses of other states, then what would the clause mean?

if you don't have to recognize my out of state marriage, then why would you have to recognize my out of state driver's license?

I really don't understand your point, but I'm not very strong in this area of law just yet.

Jeffjoe, no I don't think it's the full faith and credit clause, because the full faith and credit clause does not explicitly say that the marriages of one state do not have to be recognized by another state. It's generally been interpreted that way historically but given the activist bent of today's courts, many anti-gay marriage activists are concerned that a future court will nonetheless impose gay marriage on the country as a whole; I think that concern is well-founded.

absy

  • ****
  • 3823
    • View Profile
Re: Same sex marriage - the battle spreads
« Reply #21 on: August 04, 2004, 10:14:16 PM »
I think there are a few misunderstandings.  Romer v. Evans wasn't about the Supreme Court simply trumping a CO constitutional amendment.  State constitutions must be within the bounds of the federal constitution, and this amendment yanked a right guaranteed by the federal constitution (right to due process.  the amendment virtually voided any due process for redressing of harms against gays and lesbians).

The recent Washington ruling is a great read, because it addresses all of the issues that are usually brought up with respect to gay marriage.  Specifically, whether the right to same-sex marriage is at issue or if it's the broad right to marriage (well-established as a fundamental right).  Because a fundamental right is involved, strict scrutiny applies. I've listed a link for the ruling:
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/glrts/andrsnkng80404opn.pdf

People seem to have lost a lot of faith in the courts.  For the most part, all of these rulings hinge on a series of tests that have been established (the above ruling helps explain some of that). 
Forgive me, I love constitutional law and have a tendency to go off.  I would love to chat more on the subject.  Or I will also shut up on the topic if I get annoying.

jgruber

Re: Same sex marriage - the battle spreads
« Reply #22 on: August 05, 2004, 06:29:17 AM »
I'll have to take a look at this, but I wanted to post my agreement that many people have lost faith in the courts.

It's not surprising though. 

jgomez

Re: Same sex marriage - the battle spreads
« Reply #23 on: August 05, 2004, 06:34:33 AM »
I tend to agree with you more

I think it's some kind of "genetic" mutation of some sort.  Not meaning it in a negative way, but I'll probably get shyt for it anyways, like in my homosexuality: nature vs. nuture thread.

You actually misunderstand me here, jeffjoe.  I'm saying I've yet to be convinced that ANYONE is hardwired to be gay.  So in my book (which is a book that doesn't really matter to anyone but me, granted), what that means is that if you're not hardwired, that's a choice you make.

Granted, I've heard the argument about the animal kingdom.  Where I think that goes wrong is that the assumption level that animals can't learn certain types of behavior that may or may not come to them naturally.  I think if humans can, animals can as well.  They're not as complex, granted, but my assumption would be that the same general principles apply.  So for me that isn't cause-and-effect, and it isn't independent proof.  We need to figure out what's CAUSING the animals (as well as the humans) to be gay.  If we can determine that it is indeed hard-wired into their natures, it would be stupid to differentiate between homosexual and heterosexual relationships.  On the other hand, if it's a learned behavior in the animal kingdom at large as well as among humans, I don't know how we can justify gay marriage without justifying ANY marriage you could possibly dream up.

For me, this is the realm of (apolitical) science, and not politics.  We shouldn't even be going here at all unless science has spoken one way or another on the matter.  My natural instinct is to preserve the status quo until I am convinced it is unfair to do so, in which case I'm all about overthrowing the status quo for something more just. 

ZAP

Re: Same sex marriage - the battle spreads
« Reply #24 on: August 05, 2004, 07:10:13 AM »
edit

darren

  • ****
  • 206
  • Nader / Camejo 2004
    • View Profile
Re: Same sex marriage - the battle spreads
« Reply #25 on: August 05, 2004, 06:35:09 PM »
As I said before, there's a fine line between accepting individuals and putting our collective societal stamp of approval on behavior we don't fully understand (by legalizing gay marriage).

Zap, I can hardly believe that you're choosing to wait until science forces you to accept people as they are.  Don't you think it would be a bit more humane to give them the benefit of the doubt until and unless science proves them wrong?  Innocent until proven guilty?

Thomas Jefferson thought it was OK to consider black people inferior unless it was proven otherwise.  Someone with a good conscience would have done things the other way around.  But then, Jefferson's one of your heroes, so maybe that's where you learned intolerance...