hub's random thought re: gay marrige in the states

[siead_lietrathua]

we were kinda bantering back and forth over the US and gay marrige issues yesterday. just for something to ramble on. and he brought up a very valid, if not random, thought so i figured i would post it here.

so many of the indiviual states are making amendments (right word?) to their policies to ban gay marrige from happening.
hubs said "WAIT! since they have to amend it to NOT allow them to marry... doesnt that mean that they DO have the legal right in states that havent amended yet?"

see? random rants arent just from me! it's in the water here. anywho, food for thought?

[BlaqueKatt]

hubs said "WAIT! since they have to amend it to NOT allow them to marry... doesnt that mean that they DO have the legal right in states that havent amended yet?"

tis true, however there are county clerks who won't issue the marriage license to same gender couples due to their own personal bigotry, we had one running here in WI that pledged to start issuing them as soon as he took office, he sadly did not get elected.

[siead_lietrathua]

that sucks they shouldnt be able to do that, since they are government employees.

[Nekojin]

we were kinda bantering back and forth over the US and gay marrige issues yesterday. just for something to ramble on. and he brought up a very valid, if not random, thought so i figured i would post it here.

so many of the indiviual states are making amendments (right word?) to their policies to ban gay marrige from happening.
hubs said "WAIT! since they have to amend it to NOT allow them to marry... doesnt that mean that they DO have the legal right in states that havent amended yet?"

see? random rants arent just from me! it's in the water here. anywho, food for thought?

That's the nature of laws. All laws restrict freedoms in some fashion (ideally, for the greater good). Laws that are written to "allow" something are actually restrictions on someone else preventing you from doing that something.

[BlaqueKatt]

that sucks they shouldnt be able to do that, since they are government employees.

several in NY have resigned, citing "lack of religious freedom", sorry your religious freedom is NOT freedom to discriminate, they were told "if you do not follow this law, you will be prosecuted, it is the law."

[HYHYBT]

so many of the indiviual states are making amendments (right word?) to their policies to ban gay marrige from happening.
hubs said "WAIT! since they have to amend it to NOT allow them to marry... doesnt that mean that they DO have the legal right in states that havent amended yet?"

Depends on how you mean that. Ultimately, the US Constitution's promise of equal protection ought to mean we have the right anyway, regardless of state constitutions or any laws, so long as straight couples may marry. And, absent these amendments, in many if not all states the laws against it would be violations of the state constitution as well. That's how it became legal in Massachusetts, Iowa, California (briefly, at least), and at least one other I'm forgetting at the moment.

It's why the amendments were put in place, to make it more difficult to overturn what was already, in most places, explicitly the law already.

But in a practical sense, you don't have the right to do something until the laws or other provisions prohibiting it have been removed, and in most states it wasn't legal even before the amendments.

As for religious freedom... in your personal life, discriminate all you want. In your church, ditto. In business, follow the law... and if you are acting on behalf of the government, especially, whose papers you will and will not file is not your decision to make.

[ngc_7331]

That's how it became legal in Massachusetts, Iowa, California (briefly, at least), and at least one other I'm forgetting at the moment.

New York and I believe Maryland as well, although that might just be recognizing out of state gay marriages while not actually performing them.

[HYHYBT]

Not quite. I was giving examples where state laws were struck down by courts as unconstitutional. The legislatures of New York and Maryland changed their laws voluntarily. (Maryland's still has to survive a popular vote this fall, but in the meantime they do indeed recognize marriages from out of state, including neighboring DC. Which to me makes voting against the new law especially stupid: voters can't block marriages, but can only declare that the money generated by any weddings must go out of state.)

[ngc_7331]

Not quite. I was giving examples where state laws were struck down by courts as unconstitutional. The legislatures of New York and Maryland changed their laws voluntarily. (Maryland's still has to survive a popular vote this fall, but in the meantime they do indeed recognize marriages from out of state, including neighboring DC. Which to me makes voting against the new law especially stupid: voters can't block marriages, but can only declare that the money generated by any weddings must go out of state.)

Ah, okay, I misunderstood. That's what I get for posting after moving furniture for 3 hours. God, I hate moving.