Minnesota Governor vetoes domestic partner bill

[smileyeagle1021]

Ummmm, that's why I said constitutional amendment. They tend to change the constitution, y'see.

yeah, only 27 times, 17 if you don't count the first 10.

[Hobbs]

yeah, only 27 times, 17 if you don't count the first 10.

Please wait until my post goes up before responding to something you don't understand.

[AdminAssistant]

A Constitutional amendment similar to the ERA would remove the states' right to deny equal rights to all citizens. All it would have to say is that no state could deny rights to any citizen based on race, religion, creed, gender identification, sexual orientation, or class. (Did I leave something out??) If worded properly, it would not only make gay marriage mandatory, but it would also eliminate laws that deny adoption rights to gay couples.

[smileyeagle1021]

Wait...what are you talking about? I'm referring to states rights...what are you implying? An Amendment still can't take away rights delegated to the states, Y'SEE?!!

The problem being that there are very few things that are explicitly state's rights, the rest are "well, if we haven't mentioned them..."
That is both the best and worst part about the Constitution, it left enough ambiguity that we wouldn't have to rewrite it every couple of years as times changed, unfortunately it left enough ambiguity that we have to worry about what exactly is a state's right because it is just "well, if we haven't mentioned it..."

And as a side note, there is room in the discussion for what is right as well as what is constitutional (those two are, believe it or don't, not always the same thing).
Prior to the 14th Amendment (if memory serves on all that was included in that amendment) it would have been unconstitutional for the federal government to make a law outlawing slavery because it "violated states' rights", yet I doubt you will find anyone who will say that making slavery illegal would have been wrong.

[Ghel]

Actually, the Constitution doesn't give the federal government the right to regulate marriages. That power is given to the states. So technically, in regulating the way people obtain legal marriage in a state is up to the state government.

The Full Faith and Credit clause says that other states have to recognize contracts (including marriage) made in other states.

Wait...what are you talking about? I'm referring to states rights...what are you implying? An Amendment still can't take away rights delegated to the states, Y'SEE?!!

Actually, the 14th amendment changed that so that the states had to abide by federal laws. In other words, the constitution and federal laws trump state laws.

Up until about 30 to 35 years ago, inter-racial marriage WAS illegal in most, if not all states.

There was a mention earlier regarding Loving v. Virginia, but it was talking more about the right of couples to marry than that it was an inter-racial couple that brought the case.

what gets me is the concept of common law "marriage". that is if a couple live together long enough as IF they are husbad and wife, they are considered, in the eyes of that law married. this means that all "rights and privliages" of civil marriage are granted to them. I am not sure if these legal concepts still exist, or are still on the books, but if they are I wonder if the same princple can be applied to gay couples/domestic partners.

The reason it's called "common law" is that it's not written down anywhere. So it's uncertain whether their relationship would be viewed by the courts as a true marriage. I think it would depend on the particular circumstances and the judge's interpretation of law.

[Hobbs]

The Full Faith and Credit clause says that other states have to recognize contracts (including marriage) made in other states.

Yes, hence my argument that I would think a same-sex couple would use the FFC to legitimize their marriage in a "banned" state.

[QUOTE[Actually, the 14th amendment changed that so that the states had to abide by federal laws. In other words, the constitution and federal laws trump state laws.
[/QUOTE]

Actually, it's been like that prior to the 14th Amendment.

[jackfaire]

Actually, it's been like that prior to the 14th Amendment.

It wasn't supposed to be. When the USA was formed States rights and Federal power were supposed to be on equal footing. That way power wasn't too centeralized but the states were held together in a common bond instead of each becoming a country.

[Hobbs]

It wasn't supposed to be. When the USA was formed States rights and Federal power were supposed to be on equal footing. That way power wasn't too centeralized but the states were held together in a common bond instead of each becoming a country.

Erm, no. The Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution makes sure that federal power trumps state power. The Civil War was fought because southern states disagreed.

[Fryk]

Ok, but WHY hasn't it been done yet?

[Hobbs]

Ok, but WHY hasn't it been done yet?

I've been asking the same question.