Had the Gay Marriage Ban amendment been passed...

[cgannon64]

Last night's debate reminded me, because Bush brought it up.

Had the amendment been passed by the Senate, would it have gotten 2/3 of the states needed to ratify it? No, right?

 

[zeon252]

probobly not. The whole issue was ridiculous, never in our nation's history has the constitution ever been used to exclude a group of people.

 

[stratego]

It didn't pass. That's why Bush was claiming that he supported the freedom of choice. If it had passed, he would've been said something along the line of having put a stop to the sin that is homosexuality.

 

[cgannon64]

Yep.

Oh, a follow up question: How would a civil union situation be established? Would it go by state, or would it have to be done through a Congressional bill, or even an amendment?

 

[Sanaz]

Oh, a follow up question: How would a civil union situation be established? Would it go by state, or would it have to be done through a Congressional bill, or even an amendment?

It should be a state issue. Marriage has never been under federal jurisdiction, which is another reason Bush's amendment plan was a joke.

 

[Duke of Marlbrough]

And that's why the President doesn't get to make the decisions on his own.

 

[cgannon64]

Yeah, I thought I remember hearing that no state is required to recognize another state's marriage...

(Which I guess would mean if you got a marriage license and you are gay, you can only live in pro-gay marriage states?)

 

[Strider]

Yeah, I thought I remember hearing that no state is required to recognize another state's marriage...

(Which I guess would mean if you got a marriage license and you are gay, you can only live in pro-gay marriage states?)

Well, if I'm thinking right (this might be alittle shaky) they have to recoginize another states marriage license. I believe that have to respect the laws of another state (IE: If a criminal breaks a law in one state, and moves to another inwhich it's legal to do what he did, that state still has to arrest him for his crime).

 

[stratego]

If no state have to recognize the marriage of another state, does that mean if a couple move to another state they're technically single again?

 

[IglooDame]

The "full faith and credit" clause of the Constitution is what makes marriages and divorces recognized in other states. Just as my fiance and I can go to Las Vegas, get married, and have New Hampshire recognize our marriage (for tax/estate/medical/legal purposes) presumably a same-sex couple can get married in Massachusetts and have another state recognize that marriage, unless the recognition is superseded in one of the states that have passed anti-gay "definition of marriage" amendments to their state constitutions or plain laws doing the same thing. The federal Defense of Marriage Act provides that a state may choose not to recognize same-sex marriages from another state, but the constitutionality of that law remains untested. So... it is going to be interesting. In my opinion, it is going to be a patchwork across the states until the US Supreme Court definitively weighs in.

 

[Speedo]

I think it would have. The last polls that I remember seeing on the issue had something like 60-65% of those polled opposing gay marriage, IIRC.

 

[andrewgprv]

I'd be living in Canada.

 

[cgannon64]

See, that's what happens when you get your information by osmosis: Its totally wrong.

So, IglooDude, any states that make "defense of marriage" acts in their consitution are irrelevant until the Supreme Court weighs in? (Irrelevant because you can just go out-of-state for your gay marriage.)

EDIT: This is a weird issue. So, laws in one state do not have to exist in another (unless they are federal), but if I commit a crime in one state and run to a state where it is legal, they must catch me even if they wouldn't do it ordinarily?

 

[Strider]

I think it would have. The last polls that I remember seeing on the issue had something like 60-65% of those polled opposing gay marriage, IIRC.

Most people believe having sex with the same sex is nasty, and that's why they oppose it.

 

[Azadre]

Most people believe having sex with the same sex is nasty, and that's why they oppose it.

Really? If I remember, Lesbian Porn is VERY profitable. I doubt those people are making profit because it is 'nasty'.

 

[cgannon64]

They always say its nasty.

 

[Cuivienen]

Had the amendment been passed by the Senate, would it have gotten 2/3 of the states needed to ratify it? No, right?

More than 2/3 of all states already have laws banning gay marriage, with only Hawaii and Vermont offering civil unions and Massachusetts offering marriage (New Jersey was poised to join the civil unions category until McGreevey came out). It's likely that it would have passed the states.

 

[Arminius]

I, unfortunately, live in a state with a constitutional ban on gay marriage. (I'm not gay, I just believe in equal rights.) In the amendment that passed here, it states specifically that Louisiana does not recognize same-sex marriages of other states because it does not recognize marriage as possible between two people of the same sex.

 

[De Lorimier]

Most people believe having sex with the same sex is nasty, and that's why they oppose it.

Do you have any stats on this or what?
I don't know a lot of people who think this way. Most people I know see sex as a good thing if it's done by consenting persons, whatever orientation they prefer. Then again, I live in the real world.

 

[SeleucusNicator]

It almost certainly would have passed if it got through Congress. As somebody said, an overwhelming majority of states have laws against gay marriage, and that number is growing as many states are passing laws against it now in the wake of the Massacusetts decision.