Minnesota Governor vetoes domestic partner bill

[Hobbs]

I think it's kinda ironic the court case is Loving v Virginia.

Anyway, the rest of the Amendment says, "...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..."

Since it has been banned in that state, it was due process.

[jackfaire]

I think it's kinda ironic the court case is Loving v Virginia.

Anyway, the rest of the Amendment says, "...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..."

Since it has been banned in that state, it was due process.

They can't ban it. They have the right to remove an individual's civil rights through the law for example your convicted of a crime. But they do not have the right to pass a law that limits those rights in the first place.

[Ghel]

I have to correct something I said earlier. I suggested that the Equal Protection Clause was the reason that the Defense of Marriage Act was passed in such a hurry. But it's actually the Full Faith and Credit Clause of Article 4 of of the Constitution which forces states to recognize marriages performed in other states. When it looked like Hawaii was going to start recognizing same-sex marriages, Congress had a knee-jerk reaction which resulted in DOMA, which makes an exception (the only one) to the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

[jackfaire]

When it looked like Hawaii was going to start recognizing same-sex marriages

heeehheeee. I read the court transcripts for the court hearing. A religious rep from the Mormon Church made the claim, "I speak for all religions in saying that all faiths find homosexuality abhorrent"

I wish I could have seen the look on his face because the Buddhist rep got up and said, "We and ,(insert long list of various faiths) either embrace or have no official (holy books) stance on homosexuality."

[Hobbs]

They can't ban it. They have the right to remove an individual's civil rights through the law for example your convicted of a crime. But they do not have the right to pass a law that limits those rights in the first place.

They did so with the 18th Amendment.

[Anthony K. S.]

Interesting comment posted on the CityPages blog :

I whole-heartedly support gay marriage, but I understand that Pawlenty has other views
I am proud that he stands tall in his beliefs, even though I don't always agree

Some years ago, I saw a letter to the editor in the New York Daily News, from a woman who insisted that it was the gay community who were "truly intolerant," rather than religious conservatives.

In her view, homosexuals were being intolerant by refusing to accept as legitimate any point of view other than their own. She stated that gays were free to believe, if they chose to, that homosexuality is normal and morally acceptable, that gays should be allowed to marry, and so forth . . . and that she, as a religious conservative, was equally free to believe differently.

This woman further argued that her view was "no less legitimate" a point of view than the other, and should be respected, even if people don't agree with it.

I remember just thinking at the time how bizarre it was that she actually expected gays to either respect or accept as legitimate a point of view that actively sought to discriminate against them.

Later on, I expanded my view on this a bit :

For a long time, I had believed that any person who takes a stand for what they believe in should be respected for it. Even if you don't agree with them, you should at least give them props for being willing to fight for their beliefs.

In recent years, however, I have come to realize that there eventually comes a point when people are advocating for something that is so wrong . . . that you not only cannot support it, but you also cannot respect the people who do.

As I mentioned in another thread, conservatives will do all kinds of semantic dances to evade the accusations of bigotry and homophobia. Some people who supported Proposition 8 in California insisted that they had "absolutely no desire to hurt gays," but were "only trying to preserve the institution of marriage."

If they actually believe that, then I really feel sorry for them, because they are obviously deeply in denial. They don't want to believe that their actions are motivated by bigotry or by any wish to hurt people, so they rationalize their actions as part of some noble cause.

It is bigotry. It is discrimination. And it is wrong.

People like Tim Pawlenty are advocating for something that is so reprehensible . . . I find that I not only cannot support their beliefs, but I also cannot respect them, even for something as basic as taking a stand for what they believe in.

I will pity them. But I will not respect them.

[Boozy]

I have to agree. There's nothing noble or heroic about speaking out in a country that a) protects your rights to free speech, and b) offers many geographical enclaves where your opinion doesn't make you unpopular.

It does take some balls to stand up at a gay pride parade in downtown San Francisco and start shouting about how homosexuals are evil and going to hell, but that doesn't usually happen. Anti-gay bigots usually "speak out" in areas where their views are popular and well-received.

Besides, the bottom line is that if I don't respect your beliefs, I probably won't respect you. It doesn't mean I'll attempt to limit your right to free speech, but if you're a bigot, I have disdain for you as a person.

[Ghel]

The laws of the USA are supposed to protect the rights of the minority from the tyranny of the majority. I know it doesn't always work that way, but I have just enough faith in humanity to believe that we will eventually do what's right.

I, too, have difficulty respecting someone who expresses bigotry and intolerance toward others over something those others cannot change. We can't, and probably shouldn't, attempt to limit the free speech of those who preach (and I don't necessarily mean in a religious sense, here) hatred and discrimination. What we can do is point out where they're being bigoted, racist, homophobic, etc. Then, when someone comes across the hateful message, they can see alternate view as well.

[Fryk]

They did so with the 18th Amendment.

True, Hobbs, but the only way they COULD do it was with a constitutional amendment. If they had tried to enforce prohibition with state laws, like they're trying to do with gay marriage here, or even federal law, those laws would have been trumped by the U.S. constitution which gets the final word. So in the same vein, between the Equal Protection clause, and the Full Faith and Credit clause, I don't see where these laws have a leg to stand on.

And THANK YOU, Ghel, for finding the Full Faith and Credit Clause! I couldn't remember what it what called to look it up (which shames me, believe me).

[Hobbs]

I have to correct something I said earlier. I suggested that the Equal Protection Clause was the reason that the Defense of Marriage Act was passed in such a hurry. But it's actually the Full Faith and Credit Clause of Article 4 of of the Constitution which forces states to recognize marriages performed in other states. When it looked like Hawaii was going to start recognizing same-sex marriages, Congress had a knee-jerk reaction which resulted in DOMA, which makes an exception (the only one) to the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

That's what I meant towards challenging a ban from a couple legally married in a state where it's legal. I'm surprised more politicians/activists haven't used the premise of the Full Faith and Credit clause in order to challenge it.

[smileyeagle1021]

True, Hobbs, but the only way they COULD do it was with a constitutional amendment. .

Not to mention it is the only Amendment to my knowledge that has been overturned.

Sadly, the lesson of the ill advised prohibition era will be lost on the republican christians who will stop at nothing to keep homosexuals from being equal citizens of this nation (marriage protection amendment anybody).

[Hobbs]

True, Hobbs, but the only way they COULD do it was with a constitutional amendment. If they had tried to enforce prohibition with state laws, like they're trying to do with gay marriage here, or even federal law, those laws would have been trumped by the U.S. constitution which gets the final word. So in the same vein, between the Equal Protection clause, and the Full Faith and Credit clause, I don't see where these laws have a leg to stand on.

And THANK YOU, Ghel, for finding the Full Faith and Credit Clause! I couldn't remember what it what called to look it up (which shames me, believe me).

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.

[Racket_Man]

I am really surprised that no one has mentioned this yet.

Up until about 30 to 35 years ago, inter-racial marriage WAS illegal in most, if not all states. mostly this applied to white/black marriage but in reality was sporatically applied to white/non-white marriages. I remember very disctintly in the mid to late 1970's a couple, white male/black female, fighting to overturn that particular state law in Missouri.

the reason I remember this was 1). I grew up in that era and 2) there was an article not too long ago about some preacher or judge in a southern state who refused to marry inter-racial couples on the principle of "birds of a feather" logic and some twisted religious teaching. I think there was a thread here on Fratching about it (goes on search).

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.

this would be a good thing to explore.

[Fryk]

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.

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

[Hobbs]

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

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?!!