Stage set for possible showdown on gay marriage

[DeltAlum]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

I just don't see how, legally, you can stop gay marriage. It ends up coming down to a religious or moral argument, not a government/legal one.

I'm interested to hear that since I agree. To take it one more step, if any state should make gay marriages legal, would all of the others have to recognize that marriage in the same way that they do the Las Vegas ones mentioned above? Or, can a law in, let's say Ohio, nullify the effects of a law in, again let's say, New York within Ohio? I believe that to be the case, but don't know that for sure and ask our lawyers and law students for their input.

ETA, if states are rushing to pass laws to define marriage as being between a man and a woman, does that mean that same sex marriages are legal until that kind of law is passed? Or is there just a black hole kind of void until a law defines what a marriage can (or can't?) be? For instance, was public intoxication "legal" before some act was passed by a legislature or city council?

[AlphaFrog]

Originally Posted by DeltAlum

I'm interested to hear that since I agree. To take it one more step, if any state should make gay marriages legal, would all of the others have to recognize that marriage in the same way that they do the Las Vegas ones mentioned above? Or, can a law in, let's say Ohio, nullify the effects of a law in, again let's say, New York within Ohio? I believe that to be the case, but don't know that for sure and ask our lawyers and law students for their input.

Just like all states must recognize your driver's license, all states must recognize all legal documents from other states, including marriage licenses. (One of the few things I actually remember from my American Government class).

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by DeltAlum

I'm interested to hear that since I agree.

Haha, see, I'm not quite such a nasty conservative (and I'm only conservative on certain issues).

[DeltAlum]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

Haha, see, I'm not quite such a nasty conservative (and I'm only conservative on certain issues).

I wouldn't ever (well, ever is pretty all inclusive -- maybe almost never would be better) use the word "nasty" with conservative. I'm conversative on certain issues, too. I just try very hard not to go too far to either side -- both of which drive me to distraction sometimes.

As I've said many times, the older I get, the less I'm absolutely sure of.

What I really agree with you (I think -- don't want to put words in your mouth) on is that this debate has become much more emotional/religious than really legal -- understanding, of course, that there's also a big difference between legal and political.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by DeltAlum

What I really agree with you (I think -- don't want to put words in your mouth) on is that this debate has become much more emotional/religious than really legal -- understanding, of course, that there's also a big difference between legal and political.

Definitely - personally I'm not against same-sex marriage, so that may be clouding my judgement. However, at some point it always comes down to a religious/moral argument, and that doesn't sit well with me when making legal decisions.

[valkyrie]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

Definitely - personally I'm not against same-sex marriage, so that may be clouding my judgement. However, at some point it always comes down to a religious/moral argument, and that doesn't sit well with me when making legal decisions.

Exactly, and this is why I'm so bothered when people advocate in favor of laws prohibiting gay marriage. I don't buy the "it should be left to the states" argument mentioned earlier in this thread, because there is no non-religion-based basis for any state to enact a law prohibiting gay marriage.

[RU OX Alum]

Originally Posted by valkyrie

Exactly, and this is why I'm so bothered when people advocate in favor of laws prohibiting gay marriage. I don't buy the "it should be left to the states" argument mentioned earlier in this thread, because there is no non-religion-based basis for any state to enact a law prohibiting gay marriage.

That's true. Also, Mississippi dragged us into the civil war under the banner of state's rights when really they just wanted to keep slaves. Then Lincoln et al came down to supress state right's under the banner of freeing the slaves. Hypocrites and Horsesh*t on both sides of that conflict.

[shinerbock]

Lets not bring the War into this. However, you're still mistaken regarding your non religious based reasoning. Not only is it counterproductive, it also is very troubling to corporations who have to provide benefits. I recently spoke to one of my fathers business associates, who works for a large international corporation here in Atlanta. He said that gay marriage is a big concern for them, as partners do not tend to be long term, and that the health insurance costs are higher. I'm sure the majority of people in Mass. want gay marriage, and they should have it. But the huge majority of people in Georgia don't, and I think they should make the call about what is seen in their community.