Really. Where are the court cases that say that the FF&C clause does what you say it does. Because I posted a whole BUNCH of them that say it doesn’t. Almost a full century of Constitutional jurisprudence is against you on this one.

Not sure why I’m even going to bother, but what the heck…

1. See reference to Loving in comment 11. He posted the one monstrously significant case which EXPLICITLY overruled EVERY SINGLE ONE of the cases you cited in your litany of segregationist-based and now overturned litany of crap. Since you are obviously cribbing off some lefty legal cheat sheet, and have no idea of what legal precedent means nor any clue what the law or case history is of the subject, I suggest you go to Wikipedia and read the lay person’s version of what the case is about.

Seriously, are you at all embarrassed to be spouting legal citations which you clearly do not understand the relevance of or which you do know but are delib. lying about? (I doubt it’s the latter - even a full of it lefty nut like yourself would be embarrassed to post such completely erroneoius clap trap if you had any idea how transparently full of sh*t you sound to any one with a first semester - no first WEEK - law school education.)

2. See reference to Lawrence in comment 20. Don’t even need a violation of Loving’s fundamental right which comes under SS (that would be strict scrutiny, my dear Ann, for the standard by which race based distinctions must pass…again see Wikipedia), now, even the supposed “legitimate basis” (again, Ann, this is a legal term of art…see Wiki) of morality based laws, not race based, can be overturned by activist courts.

You frickin lefties are so full of it. Can’t you just argue and convince based on the strength of your ideas, instaed of out and out lying? Convince people and you could get what you want. We’re not anti-gay, but if you’re gonna patronize me and shove bs down my throat, it makes me distrust everything you say and your motives, and actually does make me want to vote for the FMA, something I really am uncomfortable with doing.

I’m sure this is all lost on you, though. Sigh…

But I want to make sure you get a full chance to respond, so please do repost your evidence. You do have evidence, don’t you? Everyone has an opinion, but it is the INFORMED opinions that really matter. So upon what is your opinion based? Surely there are some facts somewhere that back you up? You know, something other than what you heard on talk-radio…

Really. Where are the court cases that say that the FF&C clause does what you say it does. Because I posted a whole BUNCH of them that say it doesn’t. Almost a full century of Constitutional jurisprudence is against you on this one.

Let’s see the proof of what you say. You seem to have lots of conclusions, but very little evidence to show how you got to them. Let me amend that for the sake of complete accuracy: you in fact have NO evidence. None. Zero. Nada. A personal check for bupkus drawn on the First National Bank of Squadoo. And an opinion devoid of facts to back it up is just worthless.

By the way, you can find the Judiciary Committee testimony of Professor Lea Brilmayer which included the cases you cite, FYI in which he states:

(T)he Full Faith and Credit Clause has never been understood to require recognition of marriages entered into in other states that are contrary to local “public policy.” The “public policy” doctrine, which is well recognized in conflict of laws, frees a state from having to recognize decisions by other states that offend deeply held local values.4 One of the contexts in which it has proven particularly important is family law.

However, let me have such other more qualified Constitutional scholars clarify my concerns regarding the legal issues:

From Judiciary Committee testimony of Mr. Michael Farris, President, Patrick Henry College :

There is a recognized branch of Full Faith and Credit law that has been directly and seriously undermined as a result of the decision in Lawrence. States have not been required to recognize decisions or decrees of other states if a strong state public policy interest prohibited such recognition. According to the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws Sec. 283 (1971), a state that had a “significant relationship to the spouses and the marriage at the time of the marriage” need not recognize a marriage if the marriage contravenes “the strong public policy” of that state. In Lawrence, the Supreme Court adopted the utterly unprecedented notion that a law cannot be held to be constitutional in the face of a substantive due process challenge if the state’s interest in enacting the law was nothing more than traditional morality. While lawyers can make arguments about anything and find state interests that never entered the minds of the legislators who made the law, any honest person would say that laws prohibiting same-sex marriage, just as laws prohibiting bigamy, were based on traditional majority views of morality.
Accordingly, it will be difficult for a court to accept an argument asking for a public policy exception to the Full Faith and Credit Clause when that public policy is based on a motivation that has been labeled by the Supreme Court as violating the Equal Protection Clause.(emphasis added)

As Justice Scalia pointed out in his dissent on Lawrence:

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. If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is “no legitimate state interest” for purposes of proscribing that conduct, ante, at 18; and if, as the Court coos (casting aside all pretense of neutrality), “[w]hen sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring,” ante, at 6; what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising “[t]he liberty protected by the Constitution,”

But then again you have case law on your side, right? But didn’t Texas have case law on their side before the Lawrence decision, including the Supremes in Bowers v. Hardwick?

This is far to complex an issue to be debated in the comments on this totally unrelated thread, but perhaps you could try turning down the big A a bit as it makes you seem like a big B?
DKK

Of course if you are as good at constitutional law as you are a judge of character (or would the term pre-judge be more appropriate) you could be in trouble as nothing I have said here is dishonest.

But you choose to jump to that conclusion and attack me and Dallas…..strange trait for someone so high minded.

As someone who seems, “completely ignorant, period” to you (which if you had completed your initial though could have been interpreted to mean uninformed or unaware, but by your having amended that thought it can only really mean, “resulting from or showing lack of knowledge or intelligence” as a general condition) perhaps it wasn’t clear that by my noting your failure to address the Full Faith and Credit as well as possible challenges to DOMA it was you were being disingenuous.

(Continued)

I’m not too worried about the House GOP leadership right now… I don’t think the current crop of members have the balls to be different or innovate. I hope it doesn’t happen but I think they’ll act like the Democrats for the last few years: “Just Do No” and nitpick. A much better choice would be a dark horse like Mike Rogers of Michigan for GOP leader –he was all over the place during coverage of the 2004 GOP convention and election.

For me, the telling action for the GOP’s future is in the Senate.

I’m more interested in seeing Lott fail in his bid in the Senate and Lamar Alexander succeed… but then, I have a soft spot for competent, honest, direct political types and Lott is anything but. Lott is Mr Capitol Hill out of the old Bob Dole mode.

No, it doesn’t.

The FMA’s wording is as follows (emphasis mine):

Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.

In short, what this does is clarify that no Constitution in the United States requires that gays be granted marriage rights; furthermore, it makes it clear that marriage should be only between a man and a woman.

The leftist organizations have tried to spin this as banning civil unions; however, that interpretation is not supported by most legal scholars.

What you’re engaging in, Carl, is the typical leftist scaremongering and spinning. Why can’t you tell the truth and let people know that, according to most legal scholars, the FMA would NOT ban the extension of civil unions and benefits to gay couples?

Article about DeLay and his power grab causing a negative end result for the TX Congressional delegation:

http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/state/15995431.htm

Not to all benefits for gay couples. Civil unions, domestic partnerships, have been passed by a number of state legislatures. The federal marriage amendment will bar any of that from being passed by legislatures. Any benefits for gays.

As for DeLay, his power grab ended up causing big pitfalls to the state’s Congressional delegation. Not a surprise I guess.

http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/state/15995431.htm

And, in the overwhelming majority of cases, the duly-elected legislature has said, “Hell no”.

It amuses me how gay leftists like Ann C will try to argue against the FMA on the grounds that it disenfranchises the legislatures….while they’re filing lawsuit after lawsuit after lawsuit trying to use the judiciary to overturn these laws.

As for your case law, Ann C, there is one case that says the Federal government can force states to recognize marriages that are against their laws; Loving v. Virginia, which is, not surprisingly, the one that duplicitous leftists like you try to use to argue that gay marriage is somehow covered under “equal protection”. Furthermore, since it follows all of the cases you cited, it is considered current precedent; most of yours have been relegated to the ash heap, linked as they were towards segregationist laws.

If you respect the will of the legislatures, Ann C, come out and say that gay leftists like yourself who file lawsuits to overturn the will of the legislature are wrong. It’s the lies of the leftists like yourself who make the FMA necessary, especially as voters discover your complete duplicity and your demands that judges overrule their clearly-expressed wishes.

You seem to be completely ignorant of… well, you seem to be completely ignorant, period.

The Full Faith & Credit Clause of the Federal Constitution does not require (and never has required) one State to recognize or give effect to a marriage entered into in another State that would be illegal in that State. The courts in this country have said so over and over again.

See, for example:

Pacific Employers Insurance Co. v. Industrial Accident Commission, 306 U.S. 493, 502 (1939).
Alaska Packers Ass’n v. Industrial Accident Comm’n, 294 U.S. 532 (1935).
Williams v. North Carolina II, 325 U.S. 226 (1945).
Osoinach v. Watkins, 180 So. 577 (Ala. 1938) (marriage between nephew and widow of uncle in Georgia not recognized in Alabama).
Catalano v. Catalano, 170 A.2d 726 (Conn. 1961) (marriage between uncle and niece elsewhere questioned in Connecticut, where such marriages were prohibited; marriage considered invalid).
Toler v. Oakwood Smokeless Coal Corp., 4 S.E.2d 364 (Va. 1939) (marriage performed and valid in West Virginia questioned in Virginia, where the marriage was prohibited; marriage declared void).

You should read Lanham v. Lanham, 117 N.W. 787 (Wisc. 1908), where a heterosexual couple, who were prohibited from getting married in Wisconsin because law prohibited marriage within one year of divorce, got married in Michigan and returned to Wisconsin… but the courts ruled that their marriage was not valid, since it violated Wisconsin’s public policy.

The courts in these cases specifically said that the FF&C clause did NOT require one State to recognize marriages from another State. Nice try, though. Let’s see… I seem to have several cases that back up MY position. Do you have one that says that the FF&C clause requires a State to recognize a marriage performed elsewhere? Just one? Any proof at all?

You know, there is a reason why Constitutional jurisprudence isn’t an amateur sport, Lifetrek. Why don’t you just not try your hand at it until you are qualified, hmm?

As I said before… all this nonsense about activist judges (and the FF&C clause) is just a fake, invented crisis to justify the end of Federalism. The two posters here who bring this stuff up are being dishonest.

During the last congressional session, her district received far more earmarks than a typical district, according to Taxpayers for Common Sense, a nonpartisan watchdog that tracks congressional spending….

Citizens Against Government Waste, a critic of such “pork-barrel” spending, has calculated that Pelosi’s district received nearly $31.3 million through earmarks in the last two fiscal years.

If activist judges was the problem, then why hamstring the voters or the legislatures? A State legislature could pass a law specifically redefining marriage to include gay couples, but the FMA would specifically bar anyone from “construing” that law as doing what it actually does. A State’s voters could enact gay marriage by amendment their State constitution, but that amendment would be illegal because the Federal Constitution declares that marriage can only be one man and one woman. In fact, the FMA doesn’t even MENTION judges or courts. Not once.

The FMA, like No Child Left Behind, is a nail in the coffin of Federalism. The enduring legacy of the GOP’s 12-year run is going to be their Final Solution to the Federalism Problem.

That would produce the damndest elections we’ve ever seen — and it would do a fine job of purging the merry-go-round of officeholders we have in CA (”Done with Assembly? Run for Treasurer! Done with Treasurer? Run for Insurance Commissioner!”

That would be fine, if gay leftists would agree to quit trying to have those state bans overturned by appealing to higher, including Federal, courts.

But, since they refuse and continue to file frivolous lawsuit after frivolous lawsuit, hoping to find a judge somewhere who will overstep their bounds and overturn the will of the electorate, a Federal amendment is the only obvious solution.

Personally, I wonder if that large of a bitch-slap is the only thing that will finally purge the hatemongering and voter-fearing gay left — and allow us to actually start working where we should have in the first place, on the electorate.

And as for your last statement, Ann, fearmongering doesn’t work here, especially when your precious Democrats are supporting state and Federal bans on gay marriage and pandering on The 700 Club. We know very well it’s nothing but irrational rationalization on your part for why you can’t and won’t confront Democratic homophobia.