Which legal interests can a State create, which have the effect of denying and disparaging the individual liberty of some of the citizens of the several States? IV,2 of our federal constitution enumerates the delegated power and limitation of government by the several States.

Simply having a State religion does not necessarily prohibit other religions or the free practice thereof. It may place an additional burden on a State religion by also having to ensure the full faith and credit of public acts among the several States of the Union.

Well, Oklahoma lost a case regarding same sex adoption under the argument of Full Faith and Credit (Art IV, Sec. 1). However, that merely states that Oklahoma had to recognize an adoption by a same sex couple from another State where it was legal. Doesn't say much for adoption within the State of Oklahoma.

I don't know what you mean by State religion. Such a thing does not exist in this country. Article IV, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution has nothing to do with State religions. At least not legally though there is the outspoken mass stupidity of Americans who adhere to Christianity and believe there is some mythical Christian nature to this nation.

__________________
ugh

How is it that the privileges and immunities of the citizens of that state can be denied or disparaged, based on gender, in the process of law?

What does abortion, same gender marriage and drinks containing gin have in common?

I’m not going to have one but if you want to then go ahead.

Why does such a large portion of the US population get all excited about the private lives of their fellow citizens? Marriage is simply recognizing that two people want to enter into a stage of their relationship which transfers certain rights and responsibilities from each to the other and that this status will be legally recognized and enforced. Why should I care if this is same or different genders?

I always find it ironic that the country that invented the separation of church and state will go to such lengths to re-couple the state as the enforcer of the religious beliefs of the majority.

Whatever happened to the First Amendment to the US constitution?

Whatever happened to the Christian belief in tolerance of other opposing beliefs?

Whatever happened to privacy in the USA?

It was over 40 years ago that the then Prime Minister of Canada stated that the state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation. With that he repealed all criminal prohibitions regarding sex between consenting adults. The result was that same gender marriage was easily accepted here and passes with hardly a comment anymore.

For example I live in a socially conservative rural agricultural area and know of at least 4 same gender couples living in a community of just over 10,000 people. There are undoubtedly more, just no one cares enough to make an issue of it. It is also the policy of the Canadian Armed Forces that chaplains who are requested to perform a same gender marriage must either perform the ceremony or if they have religious objections to it to refer the happy couple to another Chaplin who will perform the marriage. The same policy applies in the RCMP. The result is that there are several same gender military couples as well as at least one same gender RCMP couple that I have heard about. (Again there are most likely more, just no one cares enough to make an issue about it.)

How does a committed relationship being recognized by the government affect my relationship with my wife? We have transferred the same rights and responsibilities to each other and don’t care what another couple does in the privacy of their own homes.

I believe that a stable relationship, without regard for the gender of the individuals involved, is in society’s best interests.

__________________
I always find it strange that only reasonable people agree with me.

Coming in a little late BUT.

I have been advocating for over 2 years that everyone, straight or gay, should get a civil union by the Government, federal, state, city, whatever. That a civil union should be the replacement for everyone in government laws. If you want a marriage then you find a clergyman/woman to marry you but it has no legal bearing.

So file with your local government for a civil union then goto a church for a marriage if you want one.

__________________
Listener of the Wilkow Majority
Patriot, Conservative, Libertarian

I dont feel sorry for GAYS on the topic of marriage. If they were smart they would compromise by accepting a civil union that would give next of kin rights, property settlements etc. But thats not good enough for them they seem to want to use a female/male couple as there role model when its not the same thing.

If GAYS find another course of action, be proud of who and what they are without BEING IN EVERYONE"S FACE, whereas the media will always focus attention on the decadent members of their team they might get some where.

Most folks who give a flying frig about fags are equally opposed to same sex civil unions and marriage. Both represent an officially recognised, and therefore condoned, government acknowledgement of immoral homosexual relationships. Both are equally objectionable, and equally disruptive to the woral underpinnings of our society.

To answer the OP's question, it actually would improve the chances of gay marriage being accepted, although I don't approve of it because the concept pretty much falls into "seperate but equal" territory.

To attack the floating strawman this post has spawned, I don't believe marriage should be at all recognized by the state, not even traditional marriage. Marriage is a religious institution, and by legislating marriage, it is restricting freedom of religion unnecessarily.

__________________
"See, there's 3 kinds of people: dicks, pussies, and assholes. Pussies think everyone can get along, and dicks just want to fuck all the time without thinking it through. But then there’s assholes. And the assholes want us to shit over everything! So, pussies may get mad at dicks, because pussies get fucked by dicks. But dicks fuck assholes. And if they didn't, you know what you'd get? You'd get your dick and pussy all covered in shit!"

I always thought that a solution was to get the government out of the marriage business. You would have a civil union that anyone could enter into and if you want a religious ceremony that was in accordance with your religious faiths.

Conversely if you could not marry for some reason a religious second ‘marriage’ would not make you a bigamist in the eyes of the law.

Many countries do this with mixed gender relationships. The signing of the civil documents make the legal union, the religious ceremony is only a public way to celebrate the union.

From what I have seen is that the gay community does not like this idea because it outs them into a second class situation in their minds. If everyone had only a civil union that was legally recognized then I do not see the difference.

__________________
I always find it strange that only reasonable people agree with me.

At what point would the full faith and credit of public acts apply?

Why would any marriage in our republic need anything more than recognition as a public act?

Exactly. They can already marry and have the exact same rights as everyone else. That is not enough though. Instead they want special rights putting them on a pedastool.

Don't change the definition of marriage. If your goal is to be together and start a family and you are not a man and a woman then you must seek another way. When I was young I was at Knotts Berry Farm and I was 1 inch short of riding Montezuma's revenge. Did I take it to court and fight for them to lower the height? Nope. Instead next time I came with my shoes with the thickest sole and got on the ride.

The problem is gays are attacking the definition of marriage. Once they succeed Marriage is no longer the same thing in my opinion. The flood gates would open. You would have to allow brothers to marry sisters and humans to marry animals, etc. Don't they deserve the same extra rights too?

Welcome to the US of Sodom and Gomorrah.

__________________
If the average person's butt caught on fire I'd be willing to bet the American media could convince them its not in their best interest to put it out.

I was correct (of course):

Rallies on Oahu, Maui, Kauai: 15,000 against Gay Civil Unions > Hawaii Free Press > Articles Main