Third Party & Independents: Archives

What stops most people from accepting homosexual unions seems to stem from a religious backing and nothing else. Their creator viewed it as wrong and therefore it should not be allowed.

Now that is a rather egocentric view point.

In no way should religion be used as a means to create law and most of those arguing against same-sex marriges are religious conservative persons that follow guidelines which harken back to the 1950’s and reek of McCarthism. They scream at the top of their lungs the vagrancy of such an act and yet conviently forget that not everyone holds the same view as they do. They cry that marrige is an important instution of love and that gays would only ruin it thinking little of what heterosexuals have done to it themselves.

I would like to see how homosexuality and same sex marrige is unconstitutional. I would honestly like to see how it is damaging and harmful to other people who are not in any way involved with said persons seeking marrige.

This nation was not founded upon Christian ideals as many like to think. Not only does the Treaty of Tripoli explicitly state such but staring at people right in the face is the First Amendment and many of our founding fathers were deists, Unitarians, or radically finding distaste with Christianity. Therefore, to place into laws or amendments rulings based upon Christian ideals solely would be a grave mistake.

I am not sure how much I contributed to your statement Mr. Martin. I did enjoy reading it and I agree with you on the most part and felt it important that you posted it. I suppose that I just had to add to it in a way. Though I am not homosexual, I do feel a need to champion the Bill of Rights because few seem to. Hopefully, some will start to look at things differently.

So to clarify, you support Civil Unions as a status which is exactly like marriage in everything but name and gender balance? Would hetero couples be allowed to receive a Civil Union?

This sounds sort of like creating two classes: regular voters and black voters, which are exactly like regular voters, but they’re black. It’s extra cruft in the law and it’s somewhat insulting.

As a minister, I think marriages I perform should be “marriages” regardless of the sex organs of the participants.

Great choice of topics Mr. Martin. This is going to play big in the election next year and needed exploration.

Marriage=Religious ceremony. Marriage=Civil contract registered with the county courthouse. To distinguish one from the other, we now refer to Marriage vs. Civil Union. Let us make no mistake that the two are, and have been, distinctly seperate. One can be married by a minister, rabbi, or priest in a church but it is not legally a marital union until a legal declaration of union is filed with the state.

Render unto the church that which is the Church’s and render unto the state that which is the states. Civil unions shall take place whether they are legal or not. Should not the law recognize the union of partners whom for all intents and purposes up to, and including, the raising of children? Such action takes nothing away from religion, and provides security and legal recognition of shared property and interests for millions of the nation’s citizens.

Excellent article, Mr. Martin.

While I’m glad that you oppose amending the Constitution to discriminate against same-sex couples who choose to marry, I’m troubled by your analysis.

Your assertion that civil unions is a “win-win situation for all involved” appears to be based on incomplete information. Gay and lesbian couples are still denied 1049 federal rights and benefits associated with marriage. So in Vermont you have a system of separate and unequal.

Moreover, the idea that gay civil marriage should be left up to the states relies upon the continued suppression of the “Full Faith and Credit” clause. That clause states: “Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.” If one state grants a civil marriage license to a gay couple, it must be recognized in every other; just like a driver’s license or birth certificate issued in California is recognized in New York.

The so-called “Defense of Marriage” act or DOMA allows states to ignore the Constitution for this issue alone. While the clause allows Congress to legislate how states shall “prove” acts, proceedings, or records from other states, it doesn’t allow for the wholsesale dismissal of certain records.

No matter how you look at it, discrimination against same sex couples who choose to enter into a civil marriage is not supported by the U.S. Constitution.

This whole debate, I believe, is muddled by people confusing civil marriage with religious marriage. What different religions do on this matter is up to them. The government cannot force religious groups to change their opinion on this issue just like it cannot mandate that women be allowed to be priests. Catholics do not recognize divorces yet the government grants them. Hasidic Jews do not sanction co-educational schooling, yet the goverment requires it in all public schools.

And not all religions are opposed to same sex marriages.

Civil marriage is a contract between two consenting adults, plain and simple. If people have a problem with gays and lesbians being issued a marriage license, then change the system for everyone. Make it so that states issue every couple — regardless of gender — civil union contracts and leave marriage to different religious groups. That is the only way to make civil unions permissable under the Constitution.

Vincent, your analysis is flawed regarding full faith and credit. It applies to federal application of law to all the states equally. It does not require that if one state legalizes gambling all states must. Neither does it mean that a civil union in one state, must be recognized in all other states. Congress may pass a law to such effect, but, a State’s right to acknowledge civil union has no sway as to the recognition of that union by other states.

I think one should grant civil unions because it would encourage more responsible behavior within the community. When you deny such rights to those who choose to live in such relationships, you encourage them to dwell in more promiscuous more tenuous relationships. Stop treating them like deviants, and you stop giving them a reason to openly rebel against the system as it is.

When one day I find that girl of my dreams, I would like to be secure in the knowledge that it wasn’t the federal government’s choice who I married, but my own. If we wish to defend marriage, we must defend the choice made, no matter who makes it.

Oh, and for those who are worried, we already rule out underaged marriages, cross-species marriages and what not. I think the words Consenting, Adult, and Human should be the only ones considered.

Besides, once you allow somebody to come in and defend marriage with the laws, what’s to prevent somebody else from attacking the institution with other laws and amendments. I think people should be mindful of the value of America’s secular truce, mindful of the value of giving people their privacy within certain limits.

David,

I will repeat, the clause states: “Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state.” A marriage license or a civil union license is a public record, just like a drivers license, or a divorce settlement.

If your reading were correct, then those opposed to gay civil marriages would not have seen the need to enact the Defense of Marriage act. It was written and passed to “protect” other states from having to recognize civil unions.

While the full faith and credit clause does not require other states to legalize gambling, it requires them to recognize the winnings or losses from such activity. Moreover, gambling is not a personal right or benefit that is attached to individuals. Marriage, in contrast, is a basic civil right. The Supreme Court acknowledged this fact as has the highest court in every state to rule on gay civil marriages thus far: Hawaii, Massachusets, Alaska, and Vermont.

Vincent, as I said, it is only applicable if Congress passes law making it so. Note the following:

Such logic surely has not been followed when “full faith and credit” is applied to any other subject. For example, in 1997, the Supreme Court ruled in the case of Nevada v. Hall that, “The Full Faith and Credit Clause does not require a State to apply another State’s law in violation of its own legitimate public policy”….”.1 Similarly, in April, 2003 the Court stated in Franchise Tax Board of California v Hyatt that, “The Clause does not compel a State to substitute the statutes of other States for its own statues …”.2 In these and numerous other cases, the Supreme Court has made clear “full faith and credit” means that states must recognize contracts and court settlements and the like from other states, but only as long as they are consistent with the states own laws and policies.

1) 1. In the Hall case, Nevada government officials on official business in California were involved in an automobile accident. Nevada tried to use a Nevada law limiting the liability of the state in such cases to $25,000. California said that as the accident happened in California, California law applied, despite the fact that it involved Nevada government officials, and California law has no such limit. The Supreme Court agreed with California.

2) 2. In the Hyatt case, Mr Hyatt moved from Nevada to California. He claimed he moved in 1991, but California tax officials said he didn’t really move until 1992 and so he owed California taxes on his late 1991 and early 1992 income. In the course of the dispute, Mr Hyatt claimed that California officials broke various laws trying to get money from him, so he sued them for damages. California didn’t deny that they had used illegal tactics, but they claimed that California law made state agencies immune from such lawsuits. Nevada law does not give state agencies such immunity, and so the state of Nevada allowed Mr Hyatt’s lawsuit. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed with Nevada: “Full faith and credit” does not mean that California law applies to actions that a person made in Nevada. Even if that someone is an official of the California state government, he does not bring California law with him when he travels to Nevada. (Maybe this was Nevada’s revenge for the Hall case. Why is it that three of the five cases I could find on this subject for the last 10 years involved Nevada? What is it with Nevada, anyway?)

David,

I agree that the Full Faith and Credit Clause does not require a State to apply another State’s law in violation of its own legitimate public policy. Yet marriage is not a law. Every Supreme Court decision dealing with marriage thus far has upheld the fact that it is a fundamental human right that no state can limit as long as it’s between two consenting adults and no compeling state interest deems otherwise.

The licenses that States issue for civil marriages or civil unions are contracts and as the quote you included in your post states:

“In these and numerous other cases, the Supreme Court has made clear “full faith and credit” means that states must recognize contracts and court settlements and the like from other states…”

The last part of that quote - “but only as long as they are consistent with the states own laws and policies” - does not hold at all when it comes to contracts and court settlements, especially when it comes to marriage. Consider that Nevada allows for very speedy divorces and civil marriages while many other states do not. Yet, a divorce or a marriage in Nevada must be honored throughout the nation.

Marriage is a contract and one that states must recognize, plain and simple. Vermont’s civil union confers the same rights as civil marriage. They only differ in name. So, if other states must recognize a Vermont civil marriage license it follows that they must also honor a Vermont civil union license. I believe the Supreme Court will side with me when they rule formally on the issue.

Justice Antonin Scalia already acknowledged that legal precedent, especially in the wake of the Lawrence v. Texas decision, would require other states to recognize civil unions or civil marriages between gay and lesbian consenting adults. In his dissent to theLawrence v. Texas case Scalia writes:

“The Court today pretends that it possesses a similar freedom of action, so that that we need not fear judicial imposition of homosexual marriage, as has recently occurred in Canada (in a decision that the Canadian Government has chosen not to appeal). See Halpern v. Toronto, 2003 WL 34950 (Ontario Ct. App.); Cohen, Dozens in Canada Follow Gay Couple’s Lead, Washington Post, June 12, 2003, p. A25. At the end of its opinion–after having laid waste the foundations of our rational-basis jurisprudence–the Court says that the present case “does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter.” Ante, at 17. Do not believe it. More illuminating than this bald, unreasoned disclaimer is the progression of thought displayed by an earlier passage in the Court’s opinion, which notes the constitutional protections afforded to “personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education,” and then declares that “[p]ersons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do.” Ante, at 13 (emphasis added). Today’s opinion dismantles the structure of constitutional law that has permitted a distinction to be made between heterosexual and homosexual unions, insofar as formal recognition in marriage is concerned.”

The Supreme Court has refused to take any cases that directly challenge DOMA. When Massachusets begins issuing civil marriage licenses to gays and lesbians, you can expect a flurry of legal challenges that will require the Court to address and invalidate that controversial law.

Vincent, excellent argument. You are right, when the challenges occur, the Sup. Ct. may rule as you indicate. But, like in all law, few things are so black and white as to make betting on a court’s rulings a profitable venture.

At some point, a compelling interest by the federal government has to be established in order for the Sup. Ct. to interfere and override a state’s right to define it’s marriage contract for its own people. You seem to be arguing that the full faith and credit rule would be jeopardized by a state’s deviation from traditional marriage concept between a man and a woman. Marriage is not a prerequisite for child bearing nor rights to parentage. Marriage is also not a choice required of individuals in order to sustain society or its order. As Tennessee has a lower age requirement for marriage than all other states, many of which would argue that a contract is not valid between individuals under the age of 18, the contract of marriage between 16 year olds in Tennessee is not sufficient to warrant the Sup. Ct. overruling Tennessee’s right to define its own marriage laws, and the contract remains valid throughout the land.

I see the same argument being made on gay marriage. What is the compelling federal interest in overturning a state’s right to define its own marriage laws? It could go either way, but the argument can and will be made that the federal government has no compelling interest to interfere with state’s rights on this issue. A marriage contract is sufficiently different from property contracts as to fail to justify recognition of such a contract by all other states. Rights of survivorship should be limited to the state(s) that recognize same sex civil unions.

And this gets to the heart of the issue in my mind. Is there any justification for state’s rights at all? If a state may not define its own marriage laws because other states may not wish to acknowledge that contract of civil union, then what is the point of state’s rights and should we not just federalize voting, family definitions, rights of survivorship and speed limit laws throughout the land for the sake of conformity?

Your argument may be upheld. But, it will be just one more wound inflicted toward the end of killing the concept of state’s rights altogether in the same way that federal law regarding medical prescription of marijuana as health enhancing medication overrides state’s laws on this same issue. When the federal law overrides the will of the people, as a whole in the nation, or as a whole in a state, the law has overstepped its bounds within a democracy unless a compelling argument can be made that constitutionally sanctioned individual rights or liberties shall be infringed.

Trevor, in answer to your question regarding heterosexuals being granted civil unions, the answer is yes. They have had access to civil unions for many decades, it is called common law marriage and if I am not mistaken, most, if not all states recognize it.

Having just gotten married less than two months ago, I was surprised to learn a few things about the way marriage is instituted, both in New York where I live and in other US states (and, for that matter, throughout history). Here are some factoids and observations that may color the so-called “gay marriage” debate.

THE OFFICIANT: The separation of church and state in US marriage law is surprisingly murky. The state issues the actual marriage license, but the marriage is not valid until the license is signed and registered by a qualified officiant. This officiant can be a justice of the peace or a judge, of course. In New York City, certain elected officials are permitted to officiate. And, not surprisingly, “members of the clergy” are empowered with the ability to officiate a marriage. How the government determines what a “clergy member” is is a mystery to me. Does the mail-order ordainment from the back of Rolling Stone magazine count?

This aspect of supposedly secular marriage law makes the religious nature of marriage utterly transparent: Would it be right, for example, to allow clergy members to officiate in the place of a judge in divorce court? Is it right to give the power of marriage to the clergy but to deny this power to, say, police officers, firefighters, doctors, lawyers, etc?

(In New York, you cannot be married by a ship’s captain, regardless of whether or not you and the captain are on a ship or not. Even if the captain is actually a Captain in the US Navy!)

YOUR BLOOD: Only eight states require blood tests. States seem to be withdrawing from this social-management aspect of marriage law. So if your spouse comes with a disease, it’s not the state’s problem any more. Score a point for the libertarians here.

YOUR AGE: Many states require parental permission for young teens (under 18, usually) to marry, but few states actually have an explicit minimum age. In New York, you can be as young as 14, but it seems that in most other states you could be 8 years old and get married as long as your parents say it’s okay. Another cold-blooded point for the libertarians.

COMMON LAW MARRIAGE: Contrary to the last post, only about a dozen states permit common law marriages at all (although most do recognize common law marriages from other states). My wife and I lived together for ten years before getting married; based on conversations with countless people over the years, it seems that the existence of common law marriage is a common misperception (no pun intended). It seems that most states pretty much assume a total monopoly on the institution of marriage

It occurs to me, however, that when a state prosecutes a “polygamist” who has only one legal (and several “off the books”) spouses, they are essentially recognizing those other spouses as common law spouses. I mean, it’s either multiple common law marriages (“polygamy”) or it’s just good old fashioned cheating (“fornication”, which, come to think of it, is still illegal in many states)

HISTORY: In the European tradition, up until a couple of hundred years ago the clergy rarely played any part in the vast majority of marriages (except perhaps for the very rich). Neither did the state for that matter. Most marriages were done by families and friends, if a ceremony were held at all. Essentially, until recently almost all marriages were common law marriages, marriages whose existence and/or validity only came into question during times of trial (adultery, crime, divorce, patrimony, death).

The idea that the state has any role to play in the institution of marriage reflects two societal qualities; the first is loathsome the second is inevitable:

1) The separation between church and state is, in many aspects of the law (such as marriage), a total fallacy. In the case of marriage, the state is using certain clergy members as marriage administrators.
2) People want their governments to be concerned for the safety of society’s children, and to that end they want the government to regulate the methods by which families are formed, managed, and even how they are dissolved.

Essentially, marriage is a hard thing to legally define no matter how you slice it. Perhaps marriage has no place in the law books at all. If it wasn’t for the fact that I beleive marriages, gay or straight, are good for children, I think I’d advocate for the abolition of marriage.

-Cf

Pesonally I think we should just stop using titles. If there were no seperations of our unike status then we might be able to be united.

There should not be gay-marriage just marriage. I am married, if my wife were a man I would love her just the same. I am not in love with her phisical self but on a spirtual level. If she were a man I’d be gay.

The goverenment has no buisness deciding what a person feels toward another, but should reconize their choice and protect them. If a couple wants to live together as one (marriage) then we should reconize their chioce. We should not ask gender about marriage just as we should not ask about race. It just does not matter.

I think we, as a society, have let our own self-rightousness run away with our rules. You are not special just because you are gay or black or latino or whatever. We are self segragating ourselves by becoming somthing different. You don’t need special needs just equal rights. But until we can agree we are equal we never will be.

At the current speed we should be Un-United States of America before too long.

I think same sex marriges should be allowed. The goverment should have no choice on who we marry. It is to be said that the goverment and the church are not to get involved together. I am Christian, but i still think it shouldn’t be banded.I’m not gonna say that I’m gonna marry a women because that isn’t me but at the same time people should be able to do what they want as long as they are not hurting themselves or anyone eles. One way or another same sex marrige will be allowed.

Gay Marriage Ban is not discriminatory. It applies to all irrespective of their sexual preference. Even heterosexuals cannot marry someone from their own sex.

By permitting Gay Marriages, the door is open to

1. Bisexuals to claim the right to marry twice. Why not?
2. Incestuous relationships. Why can’t an adult male marry his mother or a father marry his adult daughter or marriage between siblings.
3. Bestialiaty. Many proponents of Gay marriages point to the “consent” that an animal is incapable of giving. But we buy/sell animals, cross-breed them, use them as beasts of labor, slaughter them for meat, without the requirement of consent. Why should consent be required for sex only.

Lastly, Marriage is a social recognition that is granted by the society. When majority is forced to conform the whim of the minority, that’s apartheid and not democracy.

Ciao.