For those that care

[Niya W]

Tomorrow 5/15/08 , the California will rule on weather or not same sex marriage will be legal.

[GypsyKaren]

Should be interesting, anything can happen in California. It would appear that my former employer is conferring with Indiana officials about the legality of my marriage now that I'm legally female, I expect some trouble because they want to drop Kat from my insurance, should be interesting too.

Karen Starlene :star:

[Niya W]

Well if it becomes legal this way in California, the rest of the states have recognize the marriage. Hey road trip Karen :)

[Sharon]

Well if it becomes legal this way in California, the rest of the states have recognize the marriage. Hey road trip Karen :)


Unfortunately, the legislative ******** in my state -- Pennsylvania -- have already passed a law stating that same-sex marriages accepted in other states will not be recognized here.

These are the same folk who have also declared that "equal rights for all" do not apply to the transgendered citizens of the state. Funny, though, that our tax dollars are collected just as fervently as they are from everyone else. :Angry3:

[Niya W]

Unfortunately, the legislative ******** in my state -- Pennsylvania -- have already passed a law stating that same-sex marriages accepted in other states will not be recognized here.

These are the same folk who have also declared that "equal rights for all" do not apply to the transgendered citizens of the state. Funny, though, that our tax dollars are collected just as fervently as they are from everyone else. :Angry3:

"Article IV, Section 1 of the United States Constitution, commonly known as the Full Faith and Credit Clause, addresses the duties states within the United States have to respect the "public acts, records, and judicial rulings" of other states. Judges and lawyers agree on the meaning of the clause with respect to the recognition of judgments rendered by one state in the courts of another. Barring exceptional circumstances, one state must enforce a judgment rendered in another, unless that court lacked jurisdiction, even if the enforcing court otherwise disagrees with the result.[1] However, the meaning of the "public acts" requirement as a constitutional guide for "choice of law" is less clear. [2] At present, it is widely agreed that the clause has little impact on that issue.[3] However, at one point, it appeared to be a more significant command.[4]"


They dont have a choice. It was adjudicate by competent court. Pas realy dose not want to go that route, because that would open the door for states to ignore all court orders from PA. That law will fail upon federal challenge.

[GypsyKaren]

I just saw on the news that the ban in California has been overturned.

Karen Starlene :star:

[Niya W]

Well it will be atleast another two more years while we wait for the appeals process.


Well no you got people trying to put an amendment to the Californian constitution to ensure that this ban gets put back in place.

[jill s]

Someone smarter than me (large % of population) needs to coin a name for these repressive backward laws. The other side has gotten away with garbage like "defence of marriage act" and other high sounding names. If you hear "Jim Crow" we all know who was being repressed. "Phobia legislation" is all I got. Any suggestions?

[Valeria]

They dont have a choice.
Of course they do. The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) states that "no state (or other political subdivision within the United States) need treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state".


That law will fail upon federal challenge.
DOMA has been challeged on constitutional grounds several times, but the Supreme Court refuses to hear the case. So I wouldn't count on their help.

[Niya W]

From what I read it stated the people lacked standing

[GypsyKaren]

Whatever happened to "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness", and where does it say after that it only applies to opposite sex couples, the rest of you are out of luck?

Karen Starlene :star:

[Niya W]

Here Karen right paragraph three in the republicans contract on America

[Niya W]

Well the latest polls show that %51 of Californians approve of same sex marriage. %53 disapprove of state amendment to the constitution that would over turn the courts decision. While %53 might sound not to high, you need %66 percent to make this change. Right now as it stands they only have %43 in favor of such an amendment.

[leslie ann]

:eek: niya wtf did you say @#5post oohh never mind ur to smart for me

[Niya W]

leslie ann pull up chair and lets go over stats. I promise no formulas ...............this time

[Dawn D.]

Someone here made reference to an appeal of this decision? As I understand it (and by no means am I qualified on legal issues), since this decision is one of a state rights issue there can be no appeal to the federal level courts. I can not remember where I read that, it was some news agency report on this case though. I think the only real threat to this decision would be by referendum on the November ballot. However, judging the winds of change that seem to be present, my personal opinion is that this decision will stand and not be overturned. It's about time!




Dawn

[Lisa Rose]

I'm watching with great interest. To me it's not about gay etc rights it's all about human rights.