DOMA and Prop 8 - Page 2
+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 48 FirstFirst 12345612 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 479
Like Tree248Likes

Thread: DOMA and Prop 8

  1. #11
    Posting Addict ClairesMommy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    12,517

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by freddieflounder101 View Post
    I am so confused by this idea that it can be up to the states. If a couple marries in China, and moves here, they are married. But if a couple marries in New York, they can be not married in New Jersey? It doesn't make ANY sense.
    You have pointed out a big loophole in the gay marriage controversy. In Canada gay marriage is legal in every province because it falls under the federal Marriage Act. But, if a gay couple married in Canada moves to another country or jurisdiction that does not recognize gay marriage, then there's no marriage to dissolve and assets to divide, no child support to get court-ordered, etc. So, they would have to return to Canada where their marriage took place and then go through divorce proceedings. And in Canada you must be "legally separated" for one year prior to filing for divorce. Legally separated just means living apart for one year, as long as you can prove it, but still it's a major PITA for legally married gay couples when other countries or states will not recognize their legal union.

  2. #12
    Prolific Poster
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    2,219

    Default

    I'm happy with it. I think the rest of the country that isn't recognizing same sex marriage is an embarrassment to this nation where I used to think we offered "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" to all.

    I'm proud to be from Massachusetts where we can marry anyone we darn please over the age of 18.
    Mom to Elizabeth (6) and Corinne (4)

  3. #13
    Posting Addict
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    23,503

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GloriaInTX View Post
    That is why we are the United STATES. Any power not specifically given to the federal government in the Constitution is left up to the states to decide. The Feds already overstep that boundary way too much.
    I don't understand how a country can have a marriage that's legal in one state but not in another. How does that make sense to you? We are a COUNTRY. United we stand. Divided we fall.
    blather and mommytoMR.FACE like this.
    Laurie, mom to:
    Nathaniel ( 10 ) and Juliet ( 7 )




    Baking Adventures In A Messy Kitchen (blog)

  4. #14
    Prolific Poster
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    2,219

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by freddieflounder101 View Post
    I don't understand how a country can have a marriage that's legal in one state but not in another. How does that make sense to you? We are a COUNTRY. United we stand. Divided we fall.
    This!
    Mom to Elizabeth (6) and Corinne (4)

  5. #15
    Posting Addict GloriaInTX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    7,606

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by freddieflounder101 View Post
    I don't understand how a country can have a marriage that's legal in one state but not in another. How does that make sense to you? We are a COUNTRY. United we stand. Divided we fall.
    Well its illegal in a lot more states than it is legal. Why does the minority get to dictate to the majority? If we have to decide as a country I'm pretty sure it wouldn't pass.
    Mom to Lee, Jake, Brandon, Rocco
    Stepmom to Ryan, Regan, Braden, Baley
    Granddaughters Kylie 10/18/2010 & Aleya 4/22/2013


    I never consider a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosopy, as a cause for withdrawing from a friend. --Thomas Jefferson

  6. #16
    Posting Addict SID081108's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    6,237

    Default

    I do think it's inevitable. And the questions some of you bring up are the same questions we are dealing with at this moment. My companies health plan follows the federal definition of "spouse". Since the federal definition (under DOMA) has now been overturned, we fall back to the state definition of spouse. We have employees in about 25 states, so what if one of our Texas employees goes to NY to get married and then comes back here. Do we recognize that marriage? All of these things are unclear and will likely take a while to iron out through further court cases and (in some part), IRS opinions.
    CARRIE and DH 7/14/07
    SOPHIA 8/11/08
    LAYLA 3/24/11


  7. #17
    Posting Addict
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    7,272

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GloriaInTX View Post
    Well its illegal in a lot more states than it is legal. Why does the minority get to dictate to the majority? If we have to decide as a country I'm pretty sure it wouldn't pass.
    Let's not go there. I don't want it to get too personal.

  8. #18
    Community Host Alissa_Sal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Debating Away on the Debate Board!
    Posts
    11,771

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GloriaInTX View Post
    Well its illegal in a lot more states than it is legal. Why does the minority get to dictate to the majority? If we have to decide as a country I'm pretty sure it wouldn't pass.
    I'm sure there are states where it currently wouldn't pass, but if we did a country wide vote, it would pass. According to polls anyway.

    Interesting article in Slate today.

    Gay marriage polls and public opinion: The Supreme Court’s rulings upheld the people’s will. - Slate Magazine

    Once again, the Supreme Court has infuriated conservatives. They say the court’s decisions in United States v. Windsor and Hollingsworth v. Perry—voiding part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act and disqualifying the plaintiffs who sought to reinstate California’s ban on gay marriage—override and disrespect the will of the people. But the will of the people isn’t what it used to be. In states where voters once passed ballot measures against same-sex marriage, they now support it. The country as a whole supports it. The court, in striking down what voters believed 10 or 20 years ago, is upholding what voters believe today.


    Shortly after the court’s opinions were released, House Republicans held a press conference to denounce the rulings. They argued that marriage policy should be made by “elected representatives instead of unelected judges.” The problem is that in this case, California’s elected officials—its governor and attorney general—refused to defend the state’s ban, which voters approved in a 2008 referendum. At the press conference, Rep. Doug LaMalfa of California decried this treachery. He said voters lose faith in democracy when they’re abandoned by “their elected officials, like an attorney general in California that refused, because of politics, to defend what the people had done.”


    That’s an odd complaint. When elected officials play politics, they generally comply with the people’s will. And that’s what happened in California. In 2008, as the National Organization for Marriage notes, “Proposition 8 was passed with over 52% of the vote.” But in the most recent Los Angeles Times poll, taken four weeks ago, Californians affirmed, 58 to 36 percent, that “same-sex couples should be allowed to become legally married.” The state’s leaders have abandoned what Californians thought five years ago to support what Californians think today.


    Another speaker at the Republican press conference, Rep. Tim Walberg of Michigan, accused the court of “taking away the voice of the people.” He boasted that “in my state, we have clearly defined marriage to be that relationship between a man and woman.” That’s true: In 2004, 59 percent of Michigan residents who cast ballots on a proposal to forbid gay marriage voted for the ban. But a campaign is now underway to repeal the ban, and in the most recent Michigan poll, 57 percent of voters said they support gay marriage. Fifty-four percent said they’d like to replace the ban with an amendment authorizing same-sex marriage.


    Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., declared at the press conference that “the people are more important than the Supreme Court.” She said the court “undercut the people’s representatives. When they [Congress] voted on the Defense of Marriage Act in the first place, the people were duly represented. They represented the will of their constituencies.” That was true in 1996, when DOMA passed. A decade later, when Bachmann, as a state senator, led the fight in Minnesota for a state constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, she could still claim to represent the people: 54 percent of Minnesotans opposed legalizing same-sex marriage, while only 29 percent favored it. But last fall, by 51 to 47 percent, Minnesotans voted down a ballot measure to define marriage as exclusively heterosexual. A month ago, the new Democratic-controlled legislature legalized gay marriage. Today, a tentative plurality of Minnesotans—46 to 44 percent—supports that decision. That’s an eight-point increase in support since the same question was asked in February.


    What’s happening in California, Michigan, and Minnesota is happening everywhere. “Thirty-eight states have affirmed the belief of their citizens that marriage exists between a man and a woman,” Rep. Vicky Hartzler of Missouri pointed out at the press conference. Her reliance on the past tense was telling. According to a report issued two months ago by UCLA’s Williams Institute, “In the last eight years, every state has increased in its support for marriage for same-sex couples with an average increase of 13.6%. If present public opinion trends continue, another 8 states will be above 50% support by the end of 2014.” Based on the average rate of increase in support for gay marriage—about 1.5 percentage points per year—Nate Silver projects that by 2016, support will exceed 50 percent in 32 states. By 2020, all but six states will have crossed that threshold, and in all but two, support will exceed 48 percent.


    The National Organization for Marriage also uses the past tense. “The vast majority of American voters have expressed with their votes their desire to maintain marriage as the union of one man and one woman,” it argues. “That decision should be respected and left undisturbed." But that old consensus has already been disturbed by the people themselves. In fact, they’ve trashed it. In last fall’s state ballot measures, they voted 4-0 for gay marriage. Every national survey shows the same trend. In 1996, Gallup found that Americans opposed recognizing same-sex marriages, 68 to 27 percent. By 2004, the gap had narrowed to 55-42. Today, it has turned in favor of same-sex marriage, 53 to 45. In 2003, the Pew Research Center found that Americans opposed allowing gays to marry legally, 59 to 32 percent. Today, they favor legalization, 50 to 43 percent. In 2007, only 40 percent of Americans in a CNN poll said gay marriages should “be recognized by the law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages.” Today that number has risen to 55 percent. A year ago, in a CBS/New York Times poll, Americans opposed the legality of same-sex marriage, 51 to 42 percent. Now they support it, 51 to 44 percent.


    As the people have changed, so have their elected representatives. The Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative legal institute involved in the Supreme Court cases, protests that “DOMA was hardly controversial at the time it was passed: far from creating a partisan political divide, DOMA united Democrats and Republicans—passing by a bipartisan 84 percent of Congress (85-14 in the Senate, 342-67 in the House).” Again, note the past tense. Today, the Human Rights Campaign lists 54 senators and 184 House members as supporters of same-sex marriage.


    Cheer up, conservatives. The court, at long last, has done what the people want. Unelected judges are no longer the nosy outsiders defying the country’s values. You are.
    Bolding mine.
    -Alissa, mom to Tristan (5) and Reid (the baby!)

    Got an opinion? We've got a board! Come join us for some lively debate on the Face Off! Debate Arena board.

  9. #19
    Community Host Alissa_Sal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Debating Away on the Debate Board!
    Posts
    11,771

    Default

    DP
    Last edited by Alissa_Sal; 06-27-2013 at 02:30 PM.
    -Alissa, mom to Tristan (5) and Reid (the baby!)

    Got an opinion? We've got a board! Come join us for some lively debate on the Face Off! Debate Arena board.

  10. #20
    Posting Addict
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    23,503

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GloriaInTX View Post
    Well its illegal in a lot more states than it is legal. Why does the minority get to dictate to the majority? If we have to decide as a country I'm pretty sure it wouldn't pass.
    That still doesn't explain how marriage can be legal in one state but not in another within one country. It makes no logical sense.

    And sometimes the majority has to deal with the fact that minorities deserve equal rights. There's even precedent!
    Laurie, mom to:
    Nathaniel ( 10 ) and Juliet ( 7 )




    Baking Adventures In A Messy Kitchen (blog)

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 48 FirstFirst 12345612 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
v -->

About Us | Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Sitemap | Terms & Conditions