Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There is a difference, of course, between a simple law and a constitutional amendment. That's why many states scrambled to make it an amendment to their constitution rather than just a law. Amendments are much more difficult to overturn.
That is true...but read this...
"The Court ruled on May 15, 2008, that Proposition 22 violated the state Constitution and was therefore invalid" - it's from the wikipedia article
Right, but I don't understand what point you're making.
What you've pointed out is exactly why a constitutional amendment is much more binding than a simple law, right?
I was just pointing out that while the bans may violate a state Constitution, they don't violate the US Constitution. When people see "unconstitutional," they think US Constitution.
I was just pointing out that while the bans may violate a state Constitution, they don't violate the US Constitution. When people see "unconstitutional," they think US Constitution.
Oh, okay. I guess I've been discussing this topic for so long, I don't even think about the U.S. Constitution when it comes to marriage. It's mostly irrelevant.
Oh, okay. I guess I've been discussing this topic for so long, I don't even think about the U.S. Constitution when it comes to marriage. It's mostly irrelevant.
I was thinking about the individual state laws on marriage.
(I hope I'm not wrong again. )
This is confusing...LOL.
My point:
1) states can ban same-sex marriage if the State Constitution allows it
2) BUT, it is unconstitutional under the US Constitution (at least I'm 90% sure the SC will rule it is) for a state (or the feds) to not recognize a marriage performed in another state
1) states can ban same-sex marriage if the State Constitution allows it
2) BUT, it is unconstitutional under the US Constitution (at least I'm 90% sure the SC will rule it is) for a state (or the feds) to not recognize a marriage performed in another state
Ah, okay. I don't think we disagree on anything we've said in the last 30 minutes. There may have just been a miscommunication somewhere. No worries here.
I'm curious, afoigrokerkok: I'm assuming you voted for the ban in Texas. Do you have gay acquaintances in your state, and if so, did you tell them how you voted?
Ah, okay. I don't think we disagree on anything we've said in the last 30 minutes. There may have just been a miscommunication somewhere. No worries here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnUnidentifiedMale
I'm curious, afoigrokerkok: I'm assuming you voted for the ban in Texas. Do you have gay acquaintances in your state, and if so, did you tell them how you voted?
Yes I voted for the ban.
I know some gay people, but not well. The subject never came up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnUnidentifiedMale
Also, what in the world does your username mean?
It doesn't mean anything. I don't know what was going through my head when I came up with it.
I know some gay people, but not well. The subject never came up.
I imagine that in Texas it wasn't even a cause for discussion among most people. It was probably just assumed that it would pass with no problem. We had such a different situation here in California - before and after the election - as the whole world probably knows by now.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
)
