Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 19 to 27 of 27

Thread: Way to go Vermont!

  1. #19
    Super Moderator UGLY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Littleton, CO
    Posts
    4,934

    Default Re: Way to go Vermont!

    Quote Originally Posted by Jacob311 View Post
    The tide has turned my friends, the tide has turned. Mass., Conn., Iowa, and now Vermont have ended discrimination based upon sexual orientation for State recognition of a civil contract. Plus, New Hamp and Maine are not that far behind. NH's House has already passed a same-sex marriage bill and it is waiting in the Senate now. Maine has legislative hearings Beginning April 24th. California will have another referendum and will soon want to out do Iowa for its liberalness. Civl Rights are again on the march

    A congressman from Iowa said the people are preparing to amend the constitution to define marriage as between a man and a women. Further the Congress has passed or is passing a bill stating that no state has to honor another states decision on same sex marriages.

  2. #20
    Olympic Champ
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Parker, Az
    Posts
    3,388

    Default Re: Way to go Vermont!

    Further the Congress has passed or is passing a bill stating that no state has to honor another states decision on same sex marriages.

    Worms meet can, can meet worms.

    Marraige may no longer a definable "thing" in the United States, and instead will become a state by state definition. When you get to a new state you renew your drivers license..... and...... marraige license.

    Sounds complicated to me. I don't think it's worth the hassle. Civil Unions seems an easier route for gays and secular folks.
    I am 49, bald, ugly, and don't own a single cool thing. Kids like me though.

  3. #21
    Super Moderator UGLY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Littleton, CO
    Posts
    4,934

    Default Re: Way to go Vermont!

    Quote Originally Posted by sgallan View Post
    Further the Congress has passed or is passing a bill stating that no state has to honor another states decision on same sex marriages.

    Worms meet can, can meet worms.

    Marraige may no longer a definable "thing" in the United States, and instead will become a state by state definition. When you get to a new state you renew your drivers license..... and...... marraige license.

    Sounds complicated to me. I don't think it's worth the hassle. Civil Unions seems an easier route for gays and secular folks.

    I agree with everything you just said.

  4. #22

    Default Re: Way to go Vermont!

    Quote Originally Posted by UGLY View Post
    A congressman from Iowa said the people are preparing to amend the constitution to define marriage as between a man and a women. Further the Congress has passed or is passing a bill stating that no state has to honor another states decision on same sex marriages.
    The Iowa Republican (and some Democrats) legislators are seeking to amend the Iowa Constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage. However, this late in the session, any bills that haven't made it out of committee have to get around the rules, which is difficult but not impossible. The Democratic Speaker of the House and Senate majority leader have both stated they will prevent any attempt to bring up a constitutional amendment this session. We only have a week or so left in the legislative session and we haven't even passed our budget yet. We are potentially cutting 6% from every single state agency; I think our priorities should lie with budget deficits and not in opposing civil rights.

    Either way, Iowa's constitutional amendment process is difficult. The amendment would have to pass in 2 consecutive legislative sessions, only then does it come to the people for a vote. So, the amendment has to pass this year and next year, and then would be put to a vote for the people no earlier than 2011. This means that Iowa has three years of wonderful gay marriage!!! Hopefully at the end of 3 years, the opponents will reason that Armageddon will not befall the great state of Iowa and the anger will have subsided.

    With respect to a Congressional bill, it is called the Defense of Marriage Act, and it was passed in 1996. It provides that federal law will only recognize a marriage as between a man and a woman. It also has a provision that a state is not forced to recognize a same-sex marriage, even if it is legal in another state. However, this second clause is highly suspected to be unconstitutional because it conflicts with the US Constitution's Full Faith and Credit Clause. This clause forces states to recognize contracts entered into in other states if they are valid in that state. This provision helps to ensure continuity among the states for marriage and commercial reasons. People would be very unlikely to ever move out of their home state or leave that state in which the contract was entered if there was uncertainty about its enforceability in another state. I think US Supreme Court will have to rule eventually on the constitutionality of Defense of Marriage Act. Given the current makeup of the Court, I foresee they will find the Act constitutional. But, hey, you never know, as evidenced by the Iowa Supreme Court

  5. #23

    Default Re: Way to go Vermont!

    Quote Originally Posted by sgallan View Post
    Further the Congress has passed or is passing a bill stating that no state has to honor another states decision on same sex marriages.

    Worms meet can, can meet worms.

    Marraige may no longer a definable "thing" in the United States, and instead will become a state by state definition. When you get to a new state you renew your drivers license..... and...... marraige license.

    Sounds complicated to me. I don't think it's worth the hassle. Civil Unions seems an easier route for gays and secular folks.
    Yes because separate but equal institutions have worked so well for us in the past.

  6. #24
    Super Moderator UGLY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Littleton, CO
    Posts
    4,934

    Default Re: Way to go Vermont!

    Quote Originally Posted by Jacob311 View Post
    The Iowa Republican (and some Democrats) legislators are seeking to amend the Iowa Constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage. However, this late in the session, any bills that haven't made it out of committee have to get around the rules, which is difficult but not impossible. The Democratic Speaker of the House and Senate majority leader have both stated they will prevent any attempt to bring up a constitutional amendment this session. We only have a week or so left in the legislative session and we haven't even passed our budget yet. We are potentially cutting 6% from every single state agency; I think our priorities should lie with budget deficits and not in opposing civil rights.

    Either way, Iowa's constitutional amendment process is difficult. The amendment would have to pass in 2 consecutive legislative sessions, only then does it come to the people for a vote. So, the amendment has to pass this year and next year, and then would be put to a vote for the people no earlier than 2011. This means that Iowa has three years of wonderful gay marriage!!! Hopefully at the end of 3 years, the opponents will reason that Armageddon will not befall the great state of Iowa and the anger will have subsided.

    With respect to a Congressional bill, it is called the Defense of Marriage Act, and it was passed in 1996. It provides that federal law will only recognize a marriage as between a man and a woman. It also has a provision that a state is not forced to recognize a same-sex marriage, even if it is legal in another state. However, this second clause is highly suspected to be unconstitutional because it conflicts with the US Constitution's Full Faith and Credit Clause. This clause forces states to recognize contracts entered into in other states if they are valid in that state. This provision helps to ensure continuity among the states for marriage and commercial reasons. People would be very unlikely to ever move out of their home state or leave that state in which the contract was entered if there was uncertainty about its enforceability in another state. I think US Supreme Court will have to rule eventually on the constitutionality of Defense of Marriage Act. Given the current makeup of the Court, I foresee they will find the Act constitutional. But, hey, you never know, as evidenced by the Iowa Supreme Court
    What is the process for the people to bring forth an amendment to the states constitution? Or does the amendment have to originate in the legislature? This could all be moot if the Congress steps in (which it should not) and say that marriage is only between a man and a women with an amendment.

  7. #25
    Olympic Champ
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Parker, Az
    Posts
    3,388

    Default Re: Way to go Vermont!

    I think US Supreme Court will have to rule eventually on the constitutionality of Defense of Marriage Act. Given the current makeup of the Court, I foresee they will find the Act constitutional.

    It depends on how Kennedy votes and I am not so sure he would find it constitutional.
    I am 49, bald, ugly, and don't own a single cool thing. Kids like me though.

  8. #26

    Default Re: Way to go Vermont!

    Quote Originally Posted by sgallan View Post
    I think US Supreme Court will have to rule eventually on the constitutionality of Defense of Marriage Act. Given the current makeup of the Court, I foresee they will find the Act constitutional.

    It depends on how Kennedy votes and I am not so sure he would find it constitutional.
    That is very true. I looked back at Kennedy's rulings and I think Kennedy was also in the majority in Lawrence v. Texas, where the Court invalidated Texas's anit-homosexual sodomy law. So he probably is the swing vote and he could rule it unconstitutional.

  9. #27

    Default Re: Way to go Vermont!

    Quote Originally Posted by UGLY View Post
    What is the process for the people to bring forth an amendment to the states constitution? Or does the amendment have to originate in the legislature? This could all be moot if the Congress steps in (which it should not) and say that marriage is only between a man and a women with an amendment.
    There really isn't a direct process that allows the people of Iowa to amend the Iowa Constitution. It has to originate in the legislature. However, there is one option available, but to me, it should be called the "nuclear option." Every 10 years the citizens of Iowa can vote to hold a Constitutional Convention. 2010 is the next time this vote will occur, so next year, Iowa citizens could vote for a Constitutional Convention. The problem is, the Iowa Legislature chooses what issues will be voted upon in the Convention and how the Attendees to the Convention will be determined. Also, this allows for a total re-write of the Constition. So, although we could put a prohibition on same-sex marriage in the Constitution, we could also put in an amendment recognizing a woman's right to have an abortion; we could mandate local control for the siting of hog confinements instead of the current scheme of state control; we could remove Iowa's status as a right to work state and benefit unions significantly; or we could mandate universal healthcare in the Constitution, among others. So, having a Constitutional Convention opens a huge can of worms. The only real option is the current process for amending the Constitution, which must begin in the legislature. In 2010, we will have an election and we will see what kind of an impact the Democrats prevention of amending the Constitution will have.

    In terms of a US Constitutional Amendment, I don't think that would make all of this moot. The Federal Government has very little, if any, authority in family law issues (marriage, divorce, child custody, etc...). If the US Constitution was amended to prohibit gay marriage, that would only mean, for federal purposes (Family leave under the Family Medical Leave Act, federal income tax, ability to refuse to testify against spouse in court under federal law, social security benefits, etc...) that same-sex couples could not have access to these benefits. If their state recognized same-sex marriage, then they could still access the state benefits that accompany marriage. The US constitutional amendment would simply make the Defense of Marriage Act a part of the Constitution in stead of just a simple law/statute.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •