Say Anything Blog

I guess it’s time for a Constitutional Amendment…

Hope and change, in a free world, are the private possessions of motivated individuals.

I couldn’t agree more, r108.  There have been many individuals I have talked to that don’t see what the big deal is for a single state to legalize gay marriage when they don’t live in that particular state.  This is the same as California’s air emission standards being pushed on other states in our great union.

A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency, or simply to swell its numbers.

That may be the very best argument for a need for a federal Constitutional Amendment protecting the long-established Western concepts of marriage.

Most states have within their own Constitutions public policy exceptions to recognizing out-of-state marriages.  Even state Constitutions, however, have to take the back seat versus the US Constitution under Article 6, section 2 of the US Const, i.e. the Supremacy Clause.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Oddly enough, the Supremacy Clause has been ignored left, right and center for ages with respect to things like the Bill of Rights.

Not encouraging is it?

...for great justice

Vote Republican to preserve Western Civilization and Democracy.

Communism is evil

It is not at all clear whether the full faith and credit clause applies to marriages. 

Licenses are not universally recognized by all states.  A hunting license bought in California cannot be used in Oregon, however a drivers license can. 

Historically states have not been required to recognize all marriages of other states.  States do not have to recognize incestuous marriges legal in other states.

It may come down to the definition of “public act” and whether a marrige fits under the definition of a public act.

It is not at all clear whether the full faith and credit clause applies to marriages. 

I am not sure either, but considering the political clout of the homosexual groups in this country, I fear they may use this to foist homosexual marriage on every state.

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

I am not sure either, but considering the political clout of the homosexual groups in this country, I fear they may use this to foist homosexual
marriage on every state.

Despite that fact that, wherever it has been put to a popular vote, it has been soundly rejected by the people.  It just shows you why the Dem Party isn’t really “democratic”, and how they have no respect for the will of the people, as expressed in the voting booth.

Hope and change, in a free world, are the private possessions of motivated individuals.

Some licenses are local, and by their very nature, limited to the state lines of the state in question, e.g. regulation of land, regulation of the pursuit and taking of game. 

Naturally, the federal government has stepped in in some instances, using the Interstate Commerce Power to declare just about unlimited jurisdiction over all sorts of matters.

Other acts, as noted, are public acts, such as marriage licenses, which—once consecrated—remain with the licensee wherever they go.  States in their regulations may not discriminate or unduly burden interstate travel. This was largely an outgrowth of a series of cases where states were still acting as independent countries and trying to levy taxes or fees on commerce from foreign states.

Forcing the issue as to the contradiction in terms of homosexual marriage might well incur a backlash.

It’s hard to say.  Even though many states have held referenda or passed statutory or even Constitution provisions preserving traditional marriage, in almost every case, it is an activist bench that has been leading the charge for homosexual unions.

Whether this stirs the indolent masses to indignation coupled with effective action remains to be seen.

...for great justice

A hunting license bought in California cannot be used in Oregon, however a drivers license can. 

Hunting licenses are a different thing Lestat.  For example, hunting licenses usually last a couple weeks whereas marriage licenses last for a lifetime (although not as often as they should).

A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency, or simply to swell its numbers.

Hunting license was an example.  I could have as easily said business or bar licenses.  Neither of these licenses is portable either.

Lestat: You made a good observation originally, but as Dougee points out legal marriage licenses and all the rights pertaining thereto are portable. It is still unclear how this will work out regarding Full Faith and Credit, but I think there are good arguments on both sides of this issue.

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

I wonder what Mass would say about honoring other state’s concealed weapons permits?

Communism is evil

I wonder what Mass would say about honoring other state’s concealed weapons permits?

No way unless your name is Jose?

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

Chief

Vote Republican to preserve Western Civilization and Democracy.

And I thought this was the USA! What about Eastern Civilization? No love for that?

Yun Chu said, “You must strictly not express in words what is very significant. Both dragon and snake are killed in one blow.”

Mass will not honor other states conceal and carry permits.
But this is a state issue. Neiman just reveals his big government dint, yet again.

Check Amendment 10. Is that the one? Cite that.

Yun Chu said, “You must strictly not express in words what is very significant. Both dragon and snake are killed in one blow.”

Neiman just reveals his big government dint, yet again.

You’ll have to explain that asinine comment, I don’t get it!

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

Check Amendment 10. Is that the one? Cite that.

The Tenth Amendment doesn’t support you here, Sparkie.  It says that all powers not specifically granted to the Federal Govt reside with the States, or with individual citizens.  That rules out one State forcing all the rest to follow its so-called “gay marriage” foolishness, doesn’t it?

Hope and change, in a free world, are the private possessions of motivated individuals.

Yeah, kill all those fags!

Yeah, kill all those fags!

Oh, goodness. You’re as bad as “Buzz” with those kinds of inanities.

Do you know him, by chance? Personally, perhaps?

The only way this whole issue will be resolved is with an amendment (either in against or in support of gay marriage). The founders, and subsequent generations that added amendments, did not foresee this being an issue. As it stands, IMO, current Constitutional law regarding this issue can be contradictory depending on the perspective. An amendment could/would clear things up.

Or, we could leave it up to the voters in each State…
They would be free to vote on which version of “marriage” they would recognize.

Hope and change, in a free world, are the private possessions of motivated individuals.

I guess it’s time for a Constitutional Amendment…

How ya going to get that happening bobbie? Your cons cant win an election right now, cant get any respect from your own party, you all have tried this before when you actually had some power, and failed completely. Sounds like a delusion to me. The world will change, like it or not.
Marriage has seen its better days. It is an outdated concept. This is not just my opinion. The divorce rates and single parent household numbers show a steady decline in the “sanctity” of marriage. Is this good? Probably not. Is this a sign of the apocalypse? Probably not. Will you and others like you have to deal with it? Absolutely. Change is constant. Nothing stays the same, no matter what your fears are. Your fear of what you dont understand will be your undoing.

Conservatives certainly could win an election.  The problem seems to be we don’t have any.

It’s either RINO / Democrat-Lite or Extreme Left.

I can’t recall a time when the choices for Americans were ever so bleak.

...for great justice

Conservatives certainly could win an election.  The problem seems to be we don’t have any.

There is a reason cons have been rejected by the GOP.
Its not just “the liberal media” brainwashing people. Hell, the “Liberal media” audiance is shrinking daily, yet cons still blame whatever they disagree with on the mainstream media.
No, the reason cons are on the ropes right now is because they let neo-cons run away with the country and fuck things up. Conservatives could have saved themselves if they had just practiced oversight and common sense while they were in power. Instead, they rubber stamped the village idiot and tried to butt into things they should have left alone ie: Terry Shivo. You righties brought it on yourselves. Hoist by your own petard.

“People believe what they want to believe”

You’re right, Dragon Poker.  This has been tried before and every time the public has voted to go with the traditional view of marriage.  Thanks to a few people in black robes, those votes keep getting flushed.  Ultimately, the will of the majority should provail.  We are still a democracy, right? 

Actually, the concept of becoming a democracy was considered by the Founders and rejected.

We are supposed to be a Constitutional Republic, but as you’ve noted, that seems to be becoming more an aspiration than reality.

...for great justice

Ultimately, the will of the majority should provail.  We are still a democracy, right?

We are a democratic republic.

We are a democratic republic.

As in the People’s Democratic Republic of ______?

Sounds pretty commie to me.  Just plug those terms into your browser and see what comes up.

It is not supposed to be a PDR of whatever.

Since Brown v. Board of Education, it has been descending into that direction though.

...for great justice

That rules out one state forcing all the rest to follow it’s “gay marriage” foolishness, doesn’t it?

The 10th Amendment was added to assure the original 13 states that Congress could not simply by fiat assume powers not specifically granted them by the Consitution.

The Supreme Court, in Loving v. Virginia (1967), is a better example of how gay marriage in one state could be imposed on all.

The Supreme Court ruled that the Virginia statute barring inter-racial marriage was a violation of the rights of the Lovings, whose marriage was recognized as legal in other states.

"Here lies, in honored glory, an American soldier, known but to God.”

“Glory is not a conceit. It is not a decoration for valor. Glory belongs to the act of being constant to something greater than yourself, to a cause, to your principles, to the people on whom you rely, and who rely on you in return.”
Senator John McCain, Faith of Our fathers

As in the People’s Democratic Republic of ______?

You should read your civics books again. Might try some history as well. Ours was a democratic republic long before China was communist.

THe will of the Majority can’t prevail.
THere’s too many fractional groups intent on destroying the progress that’s been made.
THere’s a word I can’t remember in the passage “Majority rules at the _______ of the minority”.

The Supreme Court ruled that the Virginia statute barring inter-racial marriage was a violation of the rights of the Lovings, whose marriage was
recognized as legal in other states.

The Lovings were heterosexual, so there is no equivalence, even though lefties want to make one.

Hope and change, in a free world, are the private possessions of motivated individuals.