Problems with gay marriage already. - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Wax_off · 07-27-2004, 11:38 PM

Well, I kind of thought this would happen...

http://www.advocate.com/new_news.asp...30&sd=07/28/04

I'm actually a bit confused. How can the govt. not recognize legally married people? Defense of marriage act, sure, but how does that really play out? Can anyone enlighten me? Can they just say "Screw you."

It seems like fighting this is only delaying the inevitable. The cat is out of the bag, how are you going to put it back in?

Silvy · 07-28-2004, 12:02 AM

For the link-challenged:

Quote:

FBI and passport officials say no to gay marriage

Gay men and lesbians who have legally married their same-sex partners in Massachusetts are finding that they don't have access to the same rights as straight couples once they return to their home states. The latest reports surfaced on Tuesday with the story of a New Hampshire gay man who is having trouble changing his passport license and with an account of the FBI's revoking health insurance benefits for a lesbian employee's partner in Connecticut.

Donald Henneberger, formerly Donald Smith, recently received a letter from the National Passport Center in Portsmouth, N.H., denying his request for a name change on his passport. The center said it would not recognize a marriage license for a same-sex couple as proof of a name change. The center addressed the letter to "Mr. Henneberger."

Henneberger married his partner of 23 years, Arthur Henneberger, in May, when same-sex marriages became legal in Massachusetts. On the marriage license the couple checked a box that automatically changes the last names of the partners to whatever they request. The letter from the National Passport Center cites the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which states that a marriage can only be a union between a man and a woman and that a spouse can refer to only a person of the opposite sex. Donald Henneberger said he had no trouble with the Social Security Administration, another federal agency, when he requested a card in his new name.

He and his partner now have gone to probate court to get further proof of Henneberger's name change. "The woman at probate court said, 'What do you want to do--change your name to Henneberger? It's already Henneberger,"' Donald Henneberger said.

Rep. Richard Neal's office advised the Hennebergers to return to court and that this time the court would initiate the name change. The couple had sought the Democratic congressman's help. "You have to publicize your intent, demonstrate that you are not changing your name for fraudulent purposes, and then you have to appear before a judge," said Jennifer Levi, a professor at Western New England School of Law. She said the probate court name-change process is cumbersome. Henneberger balks at spending $180 in court fees and waiting for the eight-week process to run its course. "It's discriminatory," he said. Meanwhile, the FBI has rescinded health benefits that it says were mistakenly given to the same-sex partner of an agent after the couple wed in Massachusetts. Katy Gossman, an agent with the FBI in New Haven, Conn., received an e-mail from the bureau informing her that her wife, Kristin, would be removed from her health plan.

FBI spokesman Bill Carter said Tuesday the approval had been a mistake and an oversight. The U.S. government does not allow same-sex spousal benefits, Carter said.

The couple, who live in Meridien, Conn., had been receiving spousal benefits since May 30, Katy Gossman said. They were wed after gay marriage became legal in Massachusetts in May. Katy Gossman sent a copy of her marriage license to FBI headquarters in Washington seeking benefits for Kristin, whom she listed as her spouse. She also said the New Haven office called FBI headquarters to give them a "heads-up" about the situation. "I didn't try to hide it," Katy Gossman, 40, said Tuesday.

Kristin Gossman, 38, is a full-time student and had no health benefits before their marriage, Katy Gossman said. The Gossmans have not decided whether to fight the decision.

Connecticut attorney general Richard Blumenthal has said that state law does not allow for same-sex marriages, but he declined to say whether Connecticut will recognize marriage licenses issued to gay couples in Massachusetts. The Gossmans are among eight couples who have filed a lawsuit challenging a 1913 Massachusetts law that was used to block other out-of-state couples from marrying in that state. Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney has said that any gay marriages involving out-of-state couples would be declared void.

This will need to be fought... There is only one way this'll clear up, and that is when gay marriage is sufficiently recognized as having the same legal status as opposite-sex marriage.

Superbelt · 07-28-2004, 03:30 AM

Defense of Marriage Act once it hits federal courts:

pan6467 · 07-28-2004, 08:24 AM

Amazing, we're going to spend MILLIONS of tax dollars fighting this crap when the money could go to legitimate needs (such as education, such as healthcare aid, such as raises for our men and women in the military).

Instead we make this an issue so the GOP can keep the Religious Right happy.

Then the GOP can talk about waste in the government and unnecessary lawsuits.

It never fuckin ends this side wants that so they sue and make laws, then the other side says, "fuck you" and sues and makes laws and the true needs of the people and the nation get pushed aside and underfunded because government has to face fucking lawsuits over bullshit.

And to make matters worse the press tries to fuel the fire in people so that they think the bullshit lawsuits and the laws are either good or bad (depending upon the bias) then in editorials talk about the waste in government and the needs of the people.

Grrrrrrrrr the fact government is trying so hard to fight this pisses me off (you cannot legislate morals it eventually costs more to legislate than to just let it play out). But the money spent pisses me off even more.

DelayedReaction · 07-28-2004, 08:38 AM

I don't understand how a country based on the concept of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness could be so opposed to the concept of two people being married. Get out of other people's lives!

Rekna · 07-28-2004, 09:20 AM

It is easy. It is my personal belief that many religious people feel that they need to force their ways on the non-believers. When in truth God gave mankind freewill so they could make their own choices and choose the path of their life. The religious should not be trying to force their value system on others instead let them make their own choices. If they make the wrong choices then they will face the consequences later but we should not be judging people and saying they are wrong

kutulu · 07-28-2004, 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Rekna
It is easy. It is my personal belief that many religious people feel that they need to force their ways on the non-believers. When in truth God gave mankind freewill so they could make their own choices and choose the path of their life. The religious should not be trying to force their value system on others instead let them make their own choices. If they make the wrong choices then they will face the consequences later but we should not be judging people and saying they are wrong

The really ironic thing about gay marriage is the both sides are claiming the other side is forcing their beliefs on the American public. It's comical how the religious right acts like they have no problem with gay people... as long as they stay hidden and in the shadows.

Journeyman · 07-28-2004, 09:58 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by kutulu
The really ironic thing about gay marriage is the both sides are claiming the other side is forcing their beliefs on the American public.

As Jon Stewart commented, gay marriage sounds like a horrid, disgusting and utterly unAmerican idea until you realize that it doesn't force everyone to marry within their own sex.

Locobot · 07-28-2004, 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Superbelt
Defense of Marriage Act once it hits federal courts:

lol so true.

Quote:

Article IV

Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

somebody needs to mail the FBI a copy of the constitution

Wax_off · 07-28-2004, 12:11 PM

So the way I interpret Article IV is that the STATES have to give full faith and credit. The federal govt. isn't a state, they don't have to recognize these marriages. I can't imagine that doing that doesn't fall afoul of some other part of the constitution or law,.

I guess for me it just seems really unfair to say "You may be married is the eyes of the states, but not in the eyes of the federal government because you're a man married to a man or a woman married to a woman." For sure that's discrimination based on gender.

pan6467 · 07-28-2004, 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Wax_off
So the way I interpret Article IV is that the STATES have to give full faith and credit. The federal govt. isn't a state, they don't have to recognize these marriages. I can't imagine that doing that doesn't fall afoul of some other part of the constitution or law,.

I guess for me it just seems really unfair to say "You may be married is the eyes of the states, but not in the eyes of the federal government because you're a man married to a man or a woman married to a woman." For sure that's discrimination based on gender.

IMHO, I think Art. IV basically is trying to state if you have a DL in one state it is to be recognized in all states and is refering to powers not given the Fed. BUT should there be problems within the states in recognition then the Fed. can make laws to to set a standard.

I think in HS we used slavery as an example of this Art. in that if a black man was a Mass. citizen and free, and had to travel to S. Car., S. Car had to recognize his free status from Mass. and he was still to be considered free in S.Car.

Mojo_PeiPei · 07-28-2004, 10:10 PM

Perhaps I could be mistaken, but the fact that the constitution states that powers delegated to the states by federal law circumvent state law or pre-existing federal law, your Art. IV arguement is moot until DOMA is overturned.

Superbelt · 07-29-2004, 03:24 AM

Yes but it's an inevitability.

filtherton · 07-29-2004, 10:47 AM

DOMA is unconstitutional, you only have to look over to the recently passed DODOMA law to see that the right knows that it is only a matter of time before it comes up before a court that is willing to label it as such.

Wax_off · 07-29-2004, 11:10 AM

DODOMA? Defense Of Defense Of Marriage Act?

I can't find any info on it. Link please?? Thanks.

Kadath · 07-29-2004, 01:31 PM

Zing, I guess.

filtherton · 07-29-2004, 02:06 PM

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...threadid=63422

This is what i was referring to.

Mojo_PeiPei · 07-29-2004, 03:39 PM

Has it been ruled unconstitutional yet?

cthulu23 · 07-29-2004, 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mojo_PeiPei
Has it been ruled unconstitutional yet?

These things take time, but the precedent of the sodomy case practically guarantees how the Supreme Court will rule when the case gets to them. Even for a conservative SCOTUS, it is hard to legalize discrimination within the confines of our constitutional framework. I would hope that we are well past the days of Plessy vs. Ferguson.

skyscan · 07-29-2004, 04:09 PM

Some people, look so hard to find something to be angry about. It's just not worth it. Live and let live.

Best quote about the issue: "If you love someone, why should you care if they have a dick or not?"

Wax_off · 07-29-2004, 04:54 PM

Thanks for the link Filtherton. That one got by me.

Not to threadjack my own thread, but jeez, I can't believe anyone would have the balls to try to pass a law saying that the judiciary can't rule on the constitutionality of a law. That's insane.

[edit] The more I think about this the worse it seems. I don't throw this around lightly, but that bill is downright un-American. This country is built on the priciples of checks and balances. This is a clear attempt to circumvent that system, by definition, that's un-American.

MSD · 08-01-2004, 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Locobot

Quote:

Article IV

Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

somebody needs to mail the FBI a copy of the constitution

Also relevant:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

Where in The Constitution does it say that the Federal Government is responsible for (or given premission for) defining marriage?

Mojo_PeiPei · 08-01-2004, 10:07 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by MrSelfDestruct

Quote:

Also relevant:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

Where in The Constitution does it say that the Federal Government is responsible for (or given premission for) defining marriage? [/B]

No where does it say the Fed. gov. is responsible, but DOMA, A federal thjat circumvents all other law in the country, states the in this case the definition of marriage is relative to each individual state. Give it time, I'm sure within 2 years time it won't be an issue for you guys.

07-27-2004, 11:38 PM	#1 (permalink)
Wax_off No Avatar, No Sig.	Problems with gay marriage already. Well, I kind of thought this would happen... http://www.advocate.com/new_news.asp...30&sd=07/28/04 I'm actually a bit confused. How can the govt. not recognize legally married people? Defense of marriage act, sure, but how does that really play out? Can anyone enlighten me? Can they just say "Screw you." It seems like fighting this is only delaying the inevitable. The cat is out of the bag, how are you going to put it back in?

07-28-2004, 08:24 AM	#4 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	Amazing, we're going to spend MILLIONS of tax dollars fighting this crap when the money could go to legitimate needs (such as education, such as healthcare aid, such as raises for our men and women in the military). Instead we make this an issue so the GOP can keep the Religious Right happy. Then the GOP can talk about waste in the government and unnecessary lawsuits. It never fuckin ends this side wants that so they sue and make laws, then the other side says, "fuck you" and sues and makes laws and the true needs of the people and the nation get pushed aside and underfunded because government has to face fucking lawsuits over bullshit. And to make matters worse the press tries to fuel the fire in people so that they think the bullshit lawsuits and the laws are either good or bad (depending upon the bias) then in editorials talk about the waste in government and the needs of the people. Grrrrrrrrr the fact government is trying so hard to fight this pisses me off (you cannot legislate morals it eventually costs more to legislate than to just let it play out). But the money spent pisses me off even more. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

07-28-2004, 08:38 AM	#5 (permalink)
DelayedReaction BFG Builder Location: University of Maryland	I don't understand how a country based on the concept of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness could be so opposed to the concept of two people being married. Get out of other people's lives! __________________ If ignorance is bliss, you must be having an orgasm.

07-28-2004, 10:10 PM	#12 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	Perhaps I could be mistaken, but the fact that the constitution states that powers delegated to the states by federal law circumvent state law or pre-existing federal law, your Art. IV arguement is moot until DOMA is overturned. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

07-29-2004, 01:31 PM	#16 (permalink)
Kadath Muffled Location: Camazotz	Zing, I guess. __________________ it's quiet in here Last edited by Kadath; 07-29-2004 at 01:34 PM..

07-28-2004, 03:30 AM	#3 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	Defense of Marriage Act once it hits federal courts:

07-28-2004, 09:20 AM	#6 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	It is easy. It is my personal belief that many religious people feel that they need to force their ways on the non-believers. When in truth God gave mankind freewill so they could make their own choices and choose the path of their life. The religious should not be trying to force their value system on others instead let them make their own choices. If they make the wrong choices then they will face the consequences later but we should not be judging people and saying they are wrong

07-28-2004, 12:11 PM	#10 (permalink)
Wax_off No Avatar, No Sig.	So the way I interpret Article IV is that the STATES have to give full faith and credit. The federal govt. isn't a state, they don't have to recognize these marriages. I can't imagine that doing that doesn't fall afoul of some other part of the constitution or law,. I guess for me it just seems really unfair to say "You may be married is the eyes of the states, but not in the eyes of the federal government because you're a man married to a man or a woman married to a woman." For sure that's discrimination based on gender.

07-29-2004, 03:24 AM	#13 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	Yes but it's an inevitability.

07-29-2004, 10:47 AM	#14 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	DOMA is unconstitutional, you only have to look over to the recently passed DODOMA law to see that the right knows that it is only a matter of time before it comes up before a court that is willing to label it as such.

07-29-2004, 11:10 AM	#15 (permalink)
Wax_off No Avatar, No Sig.	DODOMA? Defense Of Defense Of Marriage Act? I can't find any info on it. Link please?? Thanks.

07-29-2004, 02:06 PM	#17 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...threadid=63422 This is what i was referring to.

07-29-2004, 03:39 PM	#18 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	Has it been ruled unconstitutional yet? __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

07-29-2004, 04:09 PM	#20 (permalink)
skyscan Tilted Location: Missouri	Some people, look so hard to find something to be angry about. It's just not worth it. Live and let live. Best quote about the issue: "If you love someone, why should you care if they have a dick or not?" __________________ Media Stew

07-29-2004, 04:54 PM	#21 (permalink)
Wax_off No Avatar, No Sig.	Thanks for the link Filtherton. That one got by me. Not to threadjack my own thread, but jeez, I can't believe anyone would have the balls to try to pass a law saying that the judiciary can't rule on the constitutionality of a law. That's insane. [edit] The more I think about this the worse it seems. I don't throw this around lightly, but that bill is downright un-American. This country is built on the priciples of checks and balances. This is a clear attempt to circumvent that system, by definition, that's un-American. Last edited by Wax_off; 07-29-2004 at 05:00 PM..