Here, California legislation not only conflicts with that of Massachusetts … but it expressly provides, for the guidance of its own commission and courts… The Supreme Court of California has declared in its opinion in this case that it is the policy of the state, as expressed in its Constitution and Compensation Act, to apply its own provisions…

…

Full faith and credit does not here enable one state to legislate for the other or to project its laws across state lines so as to preclude the other from prescribing for itself the legal consequences of acts within it.

DOMA on the other had I believe is unconstitutional since it violates the full faith and credit clause of the federal Constitution.

According to the Supreme Court case: PACIFIC EMPLOYERS INS. CO. v. INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMMISSION, 306 U.S. 493 (1939)

The question is whether the full faith and credit which the Constitution requires to be given to a Massachusetts workmen’s compensation statute precludes California from applying its own workmen’s compensation act in the case of an injury suffered by a Massachusetts employee of a Massachusetts employer while in California in the course of his employment.

In rejecting this argument , the SC notes that

While the purpose of that provision was to preserve rights acquired or confirmed under the public acts and judicial proceedings of one state by requiring recognition of their validity in other states, the very nature of the federal union of states, to which are reserved some of the attributes of sovereignty, precludes resort to the full faith and credit clause as the means for compelling a state to substitute the statutes of other states for its own statutes dealing with a subject matter concerning which it is competent to legislate.

It also notes

It has often been recognized by this Court that there are some limitations upon the extent to which a state may be required by the full faith and credit clause to enforce even the judgment of another state in contravention of its own statutes or policy.

…

And in the case of statutes, the extra- state effect of which Congress has not prescribed, as it may under the constitutional provision, we think the conclusion is unavoidable that the full faith and credit clause does not require one state to substitute for its own statute, applicable to persons and events within it, the conflicting statute of another state, even though that statute is of controlling force in the courts of the state of its enactment with respect to the same persons and events.

Rubbish. There is a broad societal consensus that the basic rules of marriage are commitment and monogamy. Those ideals are central to marriage because adherence to them holds families together, which is the basic glue of society.

Some married couples break the rules, and a much smaller number have no intention of following the rules at all. This is, however, not the Norm.

But when you say every couple gets to define marriage on its own terms, you are proposing that commitment and monogamy no longer become central to marriage. Instead of commitment and monogamy, the central issue of marriage becomes benefits and status. That is not good for society.

Where does my reply say it is directed towards you? I was quoting, and responding to Rocket.

American Elephant - What the hell are you talking about? I don’t think I’ve mentioned anything about a statute anywhere in any of my posts. What I said about the Boy Scouts is that I believe their freedom of association includes the right to exclude gays. I do believe that. But I also believe that conscientious parents should keep their boys out of the boy scouts (which, of course, is a perfectly permissible exercise of their own right to free association) and should encourage other parents to do the same (which, of course, is a perfectly permissible exercise of their freedom of speech). I didn’t mention a role for government anywhere.

McCain said: “I don’t believe in gay adoption.” He later “clarified” by saying that it was preferable for orphans to be raised by “caring parental figures” (note that he did not say “caring gay parents”) that it was for them to go homeless. Look it up.

Ignore this twit and keep on posting, dude.

I do believe in freedom of association but… blah blah bark bark woof woof

Translation: you don’t believe in the freedom of association. A freedom, I remind you, that, unlike statutory laws labeling gays a protected minority, is protected by the Constitution of the United States by the assembly clause, and I guess you also need reminding that the free exercise of religion is likewise protected, and finally, I guess you need reminding that the Constitution trumps statute every time.

As for your other comment, yes, i saw your intended point, i just thought it was so silly that it required mockery.

Oh, and #23 I’m apparently a practicing heterosexual. Divorced Twice, so I don’t have it perfected yet

That’s no better than assuming someone from Alabama is a yahoo or someone from New York City isn’t a Christian. I find it really offensive.

V the K - What exactly are the “rules” straight people all know not to break? Fidelity? If that’s a rule for straight people, I’m afraid it’s often observed in the breach. Divorce? Ditto. The fact is that couples, to a large degree, make their own rules. They establish between one another what is tolerable and what is not. And I see no reason to think gay people won’t be able to do the same thing.

So, if there is to be same-sex marriage, what will the rules and mores be? We know when heterosexual couples break the rules because there *are* rules. You have to be faithful, you have to honor your commitments. Will same sex couples be held to the same standard, or will it be a matter of doing whatever they feel like? Because if the latter is the case, SSM will have a destructive impact on society.

Thank you Peter for bringing up all those upstanding Liberals - who since they have no values are free from criticism when while cheating on their wife they leave a girl to drown in a car. Or when they use a young woman barely older than their daughter to get sexual gratification.

Here’s the thing about reasonable conservatives (Mr. Knight doesn’t qualify). We believe that there are basic standards or ideals that are the basis for a stable society. Not everyone, even sometimes the conservative themselves can’t always live up to those ideals.
But often it’s better to try and fail than not try at all. So sure, marriages fail, people have affairs. Just because the individual fails does not mean the principle is wrong.

But if you are a liberal than the rule is simple. I can’t live up to those standards - so get rid of the standards! Whereas a conservative will say. I failed in my own life, but better than I be a personal failure than society change it’s rules so I can feel good about myself.