Had the Gay Marriage Ban amendment been passed...

[Azadre]

Sorry, you are not entitled to persuit of happiness. Your punishment for your choice, because everyone knows you chose this, is you are no longer an American. Thank You.

Sigh.. .

 

[stratego]

The people that passed the ban may not really be anti-gay. As I said before, there has already been psychology experiments that prove that the people who are strongly homophobics are closest homosexuals themselves. Don't believe me? perhaps you'd like to see the experiment, perhaps you don't...or perhaps you DO.

 

[Smidlee]

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

In reality everyone knows making it a "state issue" is a complete joke since all it takes is the Supreme Court to overrule all those state laws. It's just a matter of time before the Supreme Courts steps in.

 

[Milan's Warrior]

In reality everyone knows making it a "state issue" is a complete joke since all it takes is the Supreme Court to overrule all those state laws. It's just a matter of time before the Supreme Courts steps in.

Personally I believe it is a matter of at least several decades before the US Supreme Court will entertain a question on same-sex marriage.
I think so because of the care that the Supreme Court took in Lawrence vs. Texas (the case that made anti-sodomy laws inconstitutional) in saying that the sentence could not be interpret extensively to marriage

 

[Milan's Warrior]

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?

Civil union is a state matter. Vermont and Hawaii have it, all others don't

 

[Milan's Warrior]

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couple can get married in Massachusetts and have another state recognize that marriage, unless the recognition is superseded in one of the states that have passed anti-gay "definition of marriage" amendments to their state constitutions or plain laws doing the same thing.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.

I am not a lawyer, but my understandin is the same as the one of IglooDude.

To answer to the original question "yes, if a same-sex couple gets married in Massachusset and then moves somewhere else where same-sex marriage is not recognized, that state will treat them as singles"

 

[Syterion]

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?

Yes, it makes perfect sense. Don't be confused for no reason, you understood it there for a second.

As for the bill, it would have passed because an overwhelmingly large amount of the population is homophobic or very religious. And I'll say it again-The only people who are against gay marriage(or civil unions for all) are homophobic, religious, or stupid. There is no logical reason for it. Only stormbind has even attempted to find a plausible one, but I don't think it is nearly enough.

EDIT:Milan's Warrior, try not to triple post. You should edit your posts together.

 

[Zamphyr]

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

3/4 of the states need to ratify a Constitutional amendment

 

[GerrardCapashen]

3/4 of the states need to ratify a Constitutional amendment

I think we could find 13 states that would refuse to ratify such an amendment.

 

[Renata]

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

And yet another reason he's a hypocrite whenever he talks about states' rights.

Renata

 

[Milan's Warrior]

Milan's Warrior, try not to triple post. You should edit your posts together.

I'll happy to; could you tell me:
How do you put several quotes from different posts in one post?
and How do I delete a post?

 

[Longasc]

I still wonder why gay marriage is one of the most discussed things in America.

Or is it just a problem of CFC?

 

[IglooDame]

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?

You can go out-of-state for your gay marriage but if it isn't valid in your home state then I suppose you would be treated as still single by your home state - I haven't seen any cases on it decided to the contrary yet, has anyone else?

The comparison to crimes in one state not being crimes in another is not a perfect comparison, but in any case my understanding is that if the second state happens to get you into custody (i.e. arrested for a different crime) then extradition to the first state is pretty much automatic. I can't offhand think of some act that is a felony in one state but isn't even a misdemeanor in another state.

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, just an interested observer.

 

[storealex]

As long as gaymarriage does not harm anyone, why should I have anything against it? I think it's a little nasty, but hey, it's not my buisness.

 

[Renata]

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.

But there is a difference in a lot of people's minds between opposing gay marriage and being willing to write it into the constitution. Just ask your average libertarian-leaning conservative or avid states' rights supporter. So those numbers may not mean much. Does anyone have numbers on popular support for an actual amendment? I don't, but I'd guess it'd be much closer to 50% than to 65%.

In addition, as others have pointed out, the actual number of states needed is 3/4 (or 38), not 2/3. That means only 13 states need vote 'no' for the amendment to fail. Just the northeast (everything down to PA and DE, not including Maryland) and the west coast (including Hawaii but not Alaska) add up to 14 states, all unlikely to pass the amendment. One or two of them might go to the 'yes' side, but most of them won't. Plenty of other states are probably close enough to 50-50 on the issue to make them possible 'no' votes. And you never know what a state like Idaho or Wyoming might do: do the voters there vote their religious convictions, or do they vote 'no' out of fear for what such a precedent could do to states' rights?

10-12 'no' votes from 'liberal' states, 3 or 4 from the 'mushy middle' and 1 or 2 from the 'states' rights rule!' crowd would be enough to defeat the amendment with room to spare.

Renata