What's the Likeliest Outcome of the Gay Marriage Issue?

[Ivytalk]

Let me pose a few options to get the debate going. This board seems grown-up enough to handle it.

A. Federal Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage.
B. Federal Constitutional Amendment allowing it.
C. U.S. Supreme Court decision allowing it directly.
D. Continuing evolution at state level, with uneven results (marriage OK; civil unions; defense of marriage acts, etc.).
E. U.S. Supreme Court backs into allowing it on "full faith and credit" grounds.
F. Other.

[travelinman67]

D.

It's too lucrative for attorneys for them (legislators/courts) to allow it to definitely be resolved. Moreso it's a great device for poli's to help divide the masses and create ideological dissonance.

We'll be litigating and voting on this for generations...just like abortion.

[TwinTownBisonFan]

Let me pose a few options to get the debate going. This board seems grown-up enough to handle it.

A. Federal Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage.
B. Federal Constitutional Amendment allowing it.
C. U.S. Supreme Court decision allowing it directly.
D. Continuing evolution at state level, with uneven results (marriage OK; civil unions; defense of marriage acts, etc.).
E. U.S. Supreme Court backs into allowing it on "full faith and credit" grounds.
F. Other.

C... to the collective kvetching by whiny ass titty babies everywhere about "activist judges" allowing equal rights.

the gay marriage opponents have a way out of this... go to a system of civil unions... but that would be contrary to their actual agenda... which has less to do with "preserving traditional marriage" than it does with "trying to intimidate and make second class citizens of, gay people"

[Col Hogan]

A question to those with more legal knowledge than I have...which is most likely 85% of those out there...

I am vaguely familiar with Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution, usually refered to as "The Full Faith and Credit' clause...and I believe I understand how it works...but please, help me...

The 54 states and territories have numerous laws that differ from state to state to commonwealth...

For example, the age to get a drivers license differs state to state...but if you have a legally issued drivers license in one state, you can operate (I assume) in all states...if you move to a state where you would no longer qualify for a license, you can't get one...

Another example...Concealed Carry (or Weapons) Permits... Some states don't even allow them, and will not recognize them from other states...some states do recognize some other states and not others...

So, if these examples do not violate Full Faith and Credit, how would/could Full Faith and Credit be applied to the Gay Marriage issue...States already have differing standards for issuing marriage licenses...but unlike a drivers license, if you qualify for a marriage license in one state...get married...then move to a state where you would not qualify for a marriage license, you are still married...

Thanks in advance for helping me understand this issue...

[Wedgebuster]

Legal knowledge? nah, just a feel for common sense. Prop 8 will be eventually ruled unconstitutional because it will be considered discriminatory. As for T-man's choices, for now I say "D" progresses, but ultimately I believe my first sentence will continue to play out until it gets to be a big enough battle to go to the Supreme Court where I believe they will rule anti-gay marriage legislation to be unconstitutional for the same reason, discrimination.

[dbackjon]

Combination of D and C, just like interracial marriage.

[TwinTownBisonFan]

A question to those with more legal knowledge than I have...which is most likely 85% of those out there...

I am vaguely familiar with Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution, usually refered to as "The Full Faith and Credit' clause...and I believe I understand how it works...but please, help me...

The 54 states and territories have numerous laws that differ from state to state to commonwealth...

For example, the age to get a drivers license differs state to state...but if you have a legally issued drivers license in one state, you can operate (I assume) in all states...if you move to a state where you would no longer qualify for a license, you can't get one...

Another example...Concealed Carry (or Weapons) Permits... Some states don't even allow them, and will not recognize them from other states...some states do recognize some other states and not others...

So, if these examples do not violate Full Faith and Credit, how would/could Full Faith and Credit be applied to the Gay Marriage issue...States already have differing standards for issuing marriage licenses...but unlike a drivers license, if you qualify for a marriage license in one state...get married...then move to a state where you would not qualify for a marriage license, you are still married...

Thanks in advance for helping me understand this issue...

the difference on "full faith and credit" is basically this:

other laws don't pertain to rights and status of an individual, but rather their property. in addition, something like a drivers license is transferable, despite the different state regs, from one state to another. in the case of a marriage, this is true for the most part. the legal challenge is going reach a head when someone from Mass or Vermont moves to Oklahoma and seeks recognition of their marriage. the basic premise is "equal protection" and the courts are going to end up ruling that other states have to recognize these marriages.

Federal supremacy in these matters has been upheld over and again by the courts.

Jon is right... this is headed the way of interracial marriage bans... enough states do it... eventually the courts invalidate as unconstitutional all bans.

[HI54UNI]

D. Slowly we will get there.

[slycat]

D. Slowly we will get there.

Agreed. But not all states will accept or adopt it. Texas is one of those. A national decision would be made in order to include Texas.

[Col Hogan]

other laws don't pertain to rights and status of an individual, but rather their property. in addition, something like a drivers license is transferable, despite the different state regs, from one state to another.

And here's why I ask for a legal expert...because the drivers license transfer analogy is not always true...

For example, if your 16 year old gets a license in St. Paul and then you move to NYC, that 16 year old's license will not transfer because it is illegal to issue a license to anyone under 18 in NYC...why isn't that a violation of "Full Faith and Credit"??? And how does that apply to a state where the state constitution prohibits same-sex marriage...

Again, looking for a good legal explanation on the Full Faith and Credit section of the Constitution and how it might or might not apply here...

[bobbythekidd]

A good point Col. Hogan. It seems that a State's right to recognize "reciprocity" trumps the Federal; full faith and credit clause; of our Constitution.

It also holds true for driver's license, DUI, and concealed carry laws (amongst others). The other States must agree to report, and uphold the same standards before they can send and receive offences.

[TwinTownBisonFan]

other laws don't pertain to rights and status of an individual, but rather their property. in addition, something like a drivers license is transferable, despite the different state regs, from one state to another.

And here's why I ask for a legal expert...because the drivers license transfer analogy is not always true...

For example, if your 16 year old gets a license in St. Paul and then you move to NYC, that 16 year old's license will not transfer because it is illegal to issue a license to anyone under 18 in NYC...why isn't that a violation of "Full Faith and Credit"??? And how does that apply to a state where the state constitution prohibits same-sex marriage...

Again, looking for a good legal explanation on the Full Faith and Credit section of the Constitution and how it might or might not apply here...

I was unaware that the license wouldn't still work... hrm. someone call danefan on this one.

[Cleets Part 2]

Combination of D and C, just like interracial marriage.

Holy Crap..!!!
Inter-racial Marriage is legal now..!!!

No wonder why this country is going down the tubes... Look at all the terrible things that have happened since inter-racial marriage was legalized... (oh.. BTW: when was that..?)

[Ivytalk]

Combination of D and C, just like interracial marriage.

Holy Crap..!!!
Inter-racial Marriage is legal now..!!!

No wonder why this country is going down the tubes... Look at all the terrible things that have happened since inter-racial marriage was legalized... (oh.. BTW: when was that..?)

The Supreme Court case was Loving [sic] v. Virginia.

[Gil Dobie]

Eventually it will just become an ordinary, everyday event, with equal rights.

[Cleets Part 2]

Eventually it will just become an ordinary, everyday event, with equal rights.

Gay marriages... or inter-racial marriages..? (or both)

[Gil Dobie]

Eventually it will just become an ordinary, everyday event, with equal rights.

Gay marriages... or inter-racial marriages..? (or both)

Read the thread title and poll question.


Are you attempting to steal this thread