For those of us who remain interested in this, there is a good article
in the New York Times this morning. Here it the url (free
registration required):

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/17/national/17MARR.html?hp

If you don't want to read the article the gist of it is:

Article IV.1 of the US Consitution states:

"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."

President Bush has stated that because of this law, if a state
allows gay marriage, then other states will have to recognize gay
marriages performed in that state. This is part of his case for a
constitutional amendment prohibiting gay marriage.

Legal scholars (with the exception of President Bush) believe that
the states which don't legalize gay marriage will _not_ be required
to accept gay marriages made in other states.

The precedents cited to justify this belief are that when
interracial marriage was legal in some states, and not in others,
states where interracial marriage was illegal were not generally
required to recognize interracial marriages performed in other
states. (And the grounds on which the Supremes found interracial
marriage laws unconstitutional were completely unrelated to the
"full faith and credit" clause of the constitution.)

On 17 Mar 2004 11:32:02 -0800, Doug Anderson
<ethelthelogremovethis@yahoo.com> wrote: For those of us who remain interested in this, there is a good article in the New York Times this morning. Here it the url (free registration required): http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/17/national/17MARR.html?hp If you don't want to read the article the gist of it is: Article IV.1 of the US Consitution states: "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." President Bush has stated that because of this law, if a state allows gay marriage, then other states will have to recognize gay marriages performed in that state. This is part of his case for a constitutional amendment prohibiting gay marriage. Legal scholars (with the exception of President Bush) believe that the states which don't legalize gay marriage will _not_ be required to accept gay marriages made in other states. The precedents cited to justify this belief are that when interracial marriage was legal in some states, and not in others, states where interracial marriage was illegal were not generally required to recognize interracial marriages performed in other states. (And the grounds on which the Supremes found interracial marriage laws unconstitutional were completely unrelated to the "full faith and credit" clause of the constitution.)

Which is precisely why we need a Constitutional amendment.

It'll only be a matter of time until "Loving v. Virginia for gays" hits
the SCOTUS.

-Tony

--
"If the grass appears to be greener on the other side of the fence, it's time
to fertilize your lawn!"
Want to jump start your marriage? Consider a Marriage Encounter weekend.
Check out http://www.wwme.org for more information.

On 17 Mar 2004 11:32:02 -0800, Doug Anderson
<ethelthelogremovethis@yahoo.com> wrote: For those of us who remain interested in this, there is a good article in the New York Times this morning. Here it the url (free registration required): http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/17/national/17MARR.html?hp If you don't want to read the article the gist of it is: Article IV.1 of the US Consitution states: "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." President Bush has stated that because of this law, if a state allows gay marriage, then other states will have to recognize gay marriages performed in that state. This is part of his case for a constitutional amendment prohibiting gay marriage. Legal scholars (with the exception of President Bush) believe that the states which don't legalize gay marriage will _not_ be required to accept gay marriages made in other states. The precedents cited to justify this belief are that when interracial marriage was legal in some states, and not in others, states where interracial marriage was illegal were not generally required to recognize interracial marriages performed in other states. (And the grounds on which the Supremes found interracial marriage laws unconstitutional were completely unrelated to the "full faith and credit" clause of the constitution.)

Which is precisely why we need a Constitutional amendment.

It'll only be a matter of time until "Loving v. Virginia for gays" hits
the SCOTUS.

-Tony

--
"If the grass appears to be greener on the other side of the fence, it's time
to fertilize your lawn!"
Want to jump start your marriage? Consider a Marriage Encounter weekend.
Check out http://www.wwme.org for more information.

Tony Miller <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote:
It'll only be a matter of time until "Loving v. Virginia for gays" hitsthe SCOTUS.

And it'll wreak just as much destructive power on the country as
Loving v. Virginia did: NONE.

--
__________Delete the numerals from my email address to respond__________
"I am angry that so many of the sons of the powerful and well-placed...
managed to wangle slots in Reserve and National Guard units...Of the
many tragedies of Vietnam, this raw class discrimination strikes me
as the most damaging to the ideal that all Americans are created equal
and owe equal allegiance to their country."
-- Colin Powell’s autobiography, My American Journey, p. 148

Tony Miller <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote:
It'll only be a matter of time until "Loving v. Virginia for gays" hitsthe SCOTUS.

And it'll wreak just as much destructive power on the country as
Loving v. Virginia did: NONE.

--
__________Delete the numerals from my email address to respond__________
"I am angry that so many of the sons of the powerful and well-placed...
managed to wangle slots in Reserve and National Guard units...Of the
many tragedies of Vietnam, this raw class discrimination strikes me
as the most damaging to the ideal that all Americans are created equal
and owe equal allegiance to their country."
-- Colin Powell’s autobiography, My American Journey, p. 148

On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 04:33:48 GMT, Larry Kessler
<l1k2e3s4s5l6e7r@w8t.n9e0t> wrote: Tony Miller <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote:It'll only be a matter of time until "Loving v. Virginia for gays" hitsthe SCOTUS. And it'll wreak just as much destructive power on the country as Loving v. Virginia did: NONE.

Proof by blatant assertion. Cool.

-Tony

--
"If the grass appears to be greener on the other side of the fence, it's time
to fertilize your lawn!"
Want to jump start your marriage? Consider a Marriage Encounter weekend.
Check out http://www.wwme.org for more information.

On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 04:33:48 GMT, Larry Kessler
<l1k2e3s4s5l6e7r@w8t.n9e0t> wrote: Tony Miller <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote:It'll only be a matter of time until "Loving v. Virginia for gays" hitsthe SCOTUS. And it'll wreak just as much destructive power on the country as Loving v. Virginia did: NONE.

Proof by blatant assertion. Cool.

-Tony

--
"If the grass appears to be greener on the other side of the fence, it's time
to fertilize your lawn!"
Want to jump start your marriage? Consider a Marriage Encounter weekend.
Check out http://www.wwme.org for more information.

Tony Miller <tony@cigardiary.com> writes:
On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 04:33:48 GMT, Larry Kessler <l1k2e3s4s5l6e7r@w8t.n9e0t> wrote: Tony Miller <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote:It'll only be a matter of time until "Loving v. Virginia for gays" hitsthe SCOTUS. And it'll wreak just as much destructive power on the country as Loving v. Virginia did: NONE. Proof by blatant assertion. Cool.

Larry didn't claim to be offering proof. It's his opinion. (Mine too.)

The situations do seem somewhat analogous, and for as much as people
keep talking about the "threat to traditional marriage" and "defense
of marriage" no one has been able to describe in what way allowing
gays to marry each other threatens traditional marriage.

I know you don't like the idea. But you haven't been able to describe
how it threatens traditional marriage either, and don't respond when
someone actually asks you for details.

Tony Miller <tony@cigardiary.com> writes:
On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 04:33:48 GMT, Larry Kessler <l1k2e3s4s5l6e7r@w8t.n9e0t> wrote: Tony Miller <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote:It'll only be a matter of time until "Loving v. Virginia for gays" hitsthe SCOTUS. And it'll wreak just as much destructive power on the country as Loving v. Virginia did: NONE. Proof by blatant assertion. Cool.

Larry didn't claim to be offering proof. It's his opinion. (Mine too.)

The situations do seem somewhat analogous, and for as much as people
keep talking about the "threat to traditional marriage" and "defense
of marriage" no one has been able to describe in what way allowing
gays to marry each other threatens traditional marriage.

I know you don't like the idea. But you haven't been able to describe
how it threatens traditional marriage either, and don't respond when
someone actually asks you for details.

Tony Miller <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote:
On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 04:33:48 GMT, Larry Kessler<l1k2e3s4s5l6e7r@w8t.n9e0t> wrote: Tony Miller <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote:It'll only be a matter of time until "Loving v. Virginia for gays" hitsthe SCOTUS. And it'll wreak just as much destructive power on the country as Loving v. Virginia did: NONE.Proof by blatant assertion. Cool.

I provide the assertion and a correlate example. The proof, or
disproof, I leave to others.

--
__________Delete the numerals from my email address to respond__________
"I am angry that so many of the sons of the powerful and well-placed...
managed to wangle slots in Reserve and National Guard units...Of the
many tragedies of Vietnam, this raw class discrimination strikes me
as the most damaging to the ideal that all Americans are created equal
and owe equal allegiance to their country."
-- Colin Powell’s autobiography, My American Journey, p. 148

Tony Miller <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote:
On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 04:33:48 GMT, Larry Kessler<l1k2e3s4s5l6e7r@w8t.n9e0t> wrote: Tony Miller <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote:It'll only be a matter of time until "Loving v. Virginia for gays" hitsthe SCOTUS. And it'll wreak just as much destructive power on the country as Loving v. Virginia did: NONE.Proof by blatant assertion. Cool.

I provide the assertion and a correlate example. The proof, or
disproof, I leave to others.

--
__________Delete the numerals from my email address to respond__________
"I am angry that so many of the sons of the powerful and well-placed...
managed to wangle slots in Reserve and National Guard units...Of the
many tragedies of Vietnam, this raw class discrimination strikes me
as the most damaging to the ideal that all Americans are created equal
and owe equal allegiance to their country."
-- Colin Powell’s autobiography, My American Journey, p. 148

"Tony Miller" <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote in message
news:slrnc5hgmt.v34.tony@home.cigardiary.com... On 17 Mar 2004 11:32:02 -0800, Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@yahoo.com> wrote: For those of us who remain interested in this, there is a good article in the New York Times this morning. Here it the url (free registration required): http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/17/national/17MARR.html?hp If you don't want to read the article the gist of it is: Article IV.1 of the US Consitution states: "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." President Bush has stated that because of this law, if a state allows gay marriage, then other states will have to recognize gay marriages performed in that state. This is part of his case for a constitutional amendment prohibiting gay marriage. Legal scholars (with the exception of President Bush) believe that the states which don't legalize gay marriage will _not_ be required to accept gay marriages made in other states. The precedents cited to justify this belief are that when interracial marriage was legal in some states, and not in others, states where interracial marriage was illegal were not generally required to recognize interracial marriages performed in other states. (And the grounds on which the Supremes found interracial marriage laws unconstitutional were completely unrelated to the "full faith and credit" clause of the constitution.) Which is precisely why we need a Constitutional amendment. It'll only be a matter of time until "Loving v. Virginia for gays" hits the SCOTUS.

The point of the NYT article is that those with knowledge
of Constitutional law agree that this is contrary to precedent.
You stated that this precedent is meangingless.
In other areas you ask others for evidence to back their opinions.

I believe that this is not the same case as Lawrence,
the case where the SCOTUS banned anti-sodomy laws.
Gays arrested for sodomy do not have the ability
to move to a different jurisdiction and escape criminal penalties.
When some states (starting with Massachusetts) recognizes gay marriage,
gays who want to live in marriage will have the ability to move there.

I therefore believe that Federal courts will allow states
to decide on their own about gay marriage
until there is a national consensus
based on experience instead of assumption.

Why do you believe differently,
beyond feeling that the court was not on your side in Lawrence,
so it never will be on your side?
--
Tsam

"Tony Miller" <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote in message
news:slrnc5hgmt.v34.tony@home.cigardiary.com... On 17 Mar 2004 11:32:02 -0800, Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@yahoo.com> wrote: For those of us who remain interested in this, there is a good article in the New York Times this morning. Here it the url (free registration required): http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/17/national/17MARR.html?hp If you don't want to read the article the gist of it is: Article IV.1 of the US Consitution states: "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." President Bush has stated that because of this law, if a state allows gay marriage, then other states will have to recognize gay marriages performed in that state. This is part of his case for a constitutional amendment prohibiting gay marriage. Legal scholars (with the exception of President Bush) believe that the states which don't legalize gay marriage will _not_ be required to accept gay marriages made in other states. The precedents cited to justify this belief are that when interracial marriage was legal in some states, and not in others, states where interracial marriage was illegal were not generally required to recognize interracial marriages performed in other states. (And the grounds on which the Supremes found interracial marriage laws unconstitutional were completely unrelated to the "full faith and credit" clause of the constitution.) Which is precisely why we need a Constitutional amendment. It'll only be a matter of time until "Loving v. Virginia for gays" hits the SCOTUS.

The point of the NYT article is that those with knowledge
of Constitutional law agree that this is contrary to precedent.
You stated that this precedent is meangingless.
In other areas you ask others for evidence to back their opinions.

I believe that this is not the same case as Lawrence,
the case where the SCOTUS banned anti-sodomy laws.
Gays arrested for sodomy do not have the ability
to move to a different jurisdiction and escape criminal penalties.
When some states (starting with Massachusetts) recognizes gay marriage,
gays who want to live in marriage will have the ability to move there.

I therefore believe that Federal courts will allow states
to decide on their own about gay marriage
until there is a national consensus
based on experience instead of assumption.

Why do you believe differently,
beyond feeling that the court was not on your side in Lawrence,
so it never will be on your side?
--
Tsam

"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelogremovethis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3Bi6c.33434$JL2.389057@attbi_s03... Tony Miller <tony@cigardiary.com> writes: On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 04:33:48 GMT, Larry Kessler <l1k2e3s4s5l6e7r@w8t.n9e0t> wrote: Tony Miller <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote:>It'll only be a matter of time until "Loving v. Virginia for gays"
hits>the SCOTUS. And it'll wreak just as much destructive power on the country as Loving v. Virginia did: NONE. Proof by blatant assertion. Cool. Larry didn't claim to be offering proof. It's his opinion. (Mine too.) The situations do seem somewhat analogous, and for as much as people keep talking about the "threat to traditional marriage" and "defense of marriage" no one has been able to describe in what way allowing gays to marry each other threatens traditional marriage. I know you don't like the idea. But you haven't been able to describe how it threatens traditional marriage either, and don't respond when someone actually asks you for details.

I have a question though regarding the slippery slope "argument." Folks
have argued that gay marriage will "open the door" to marrying monkeys and
polygamy. What is wrong, in theory, with polygamy? The only things I have
seen which are horrid is the way it has been applied in high profile Mormon
cases. What would be wrong with ploygamy by a bunch of consenting adults? I
cannot think of a thing. Except the cost of benefits for the family of a
single employee could get high.

S

"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelogremovethis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3Bi6c.33434$JL2.389057@attbi_s03... Tony Miller <tony@cigardiary.com> writes: On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 04:33:48 GMT, Larry Kessler <l1k2e3s4s5l6e7r@w8t.n9e0t> wrote: Tony Miller <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote:>It'll only be a matter of time until "Loving v. Virginia for gays"
hits>the SCOTUS. And it'll wreak just as much destructive power on the country as Loving v. Virginia did: NONE. Proof by blatant assertion. Cool. Larry didn't claim to be offering proof. It's his opinion. (Mine too.) The situations do seem somewhat analogous, and for as much as people keep talking about the "threat to traditional marriage" and "defense of marriage" no one has been able to describe in what way allowing gays to marry each other threatens traditional marriage. I know you don't like the idea. But you haven't been able to describe how it threatens traditional marriage either, and don't respond when someone actually asks you for details.

I have a question though regarding the slippery slope "argument." Folks
have argued that gay marriage will "open the door" to marrying monkeys and
polygamy. What is wrong, in theory, with polygamy? The only things I have
seen which are horrid is the way it has been applied in high profile Mormon
cases. What would be wrong with ploygamy by a bunch of consenting adults? I
cannot think of a thing. Except the cost of benefits for the family of a
single employee could get high.

S

"Stephanie Stowe" <stowe@whackthisvsac.org> wrote in message
news:Kv2dnQx7nuiRxsbd4p2dnA@telcove.net... I have a question though regarding the slippery slope "argument." Folks have argued that gay marriage will "open the door" to marrying monkeys and polygamy. What is wrong, in theory, with polygamy? The only things I have seen which are horrid is the way it has been applied in high profile
Mormon cases. What would be wrong with ploygamy by a bunch of consenting adults?
I cannot think of a thing. Except the cost of benefits for the family of a single employee could get high.

In practice,
there seem to be two kinds of polygamous families,
those where women have a voice and those where they do not.
The latter is horribly wrong IMO (as in Fresno's tragedy).
In the former case, the larger number of women in the family
can lead to different norms for behavior,
arguably an improvement.

But when more than 2 people are related,
there natually is a tendency to sub-cluster and act jealous.
This tendency of group marriages toward instability
is the worst theoretical aspect of polygamy IMO.
--
Tsam

"Stephanie Stowe" <stowe@whackthisvsac.org> wrote in message
news:Kv2dnQx7nuiRxsbd4p2dnA@telcove.net... I have a question though regarding the slippery slope "argument." Folks have argued that gay marriage will "open the door" to marrying monkeys and polygamy. What is wrong, in theory, with polygamy? The only things I have seen which are horrid is the way it has been applied in high profile
Mormon cases. What would be wrong with ploygamy by a bunch of consenting adults?
I cannot think of a thing. Except the cost of benefits for the family of a single employee could get high.

In practice,
there seem to be two kinds of polygamous families,
those where women have a voice and those where they do not.
The latter is horribly wrong IMO (as in Fresno's tragedy).
In the former case, the larger number of women in the family
can lead to different norms for behavior,
arguably an improvement.

But when more than 2 people are related,
there natually is a tendency to sub-cluster and act jealous.
This tendency of group marriages toward instability
is the worst theoretical aspect of polygamy IMO.
--
Tsam

"Tsam Nami" <tsam-nami@tidal.wav> wrote in message
news:KbJ6c.48463$aT1.42684@newsread1.news.pas.eart hlink.net... "Stephanie Stowe" <stowe@whackthisvsac.org> wrote in message news:Kv2dnQx7nuiRxsbd4p2dnA@telcove.net... I have a question though regarding the slippery slope "argument." Folks have argued that gay marriage will "open the door" to marrying monkeys
and polygamy. What is wrong, in theory, with polygamy? The only things I
have seen which are horrid is the way it has been applied in high profile Mormon cases. What would be wrong with ploygamy by a bunch of consenting
adults? I cannot think of a thing. Except the cost of benefits for the family of a single employee could get high. In practice, there seem to be two kinds of polygamous families, those where women have a voice and those where they do not. The latter is horribly wrong IMO (as in Fresno's tragedy). In the former case, the larger number of women in the family can lead to different norms for behavior, arguably an improvement. But when more than 2 people are related, there natually is a tendency to sub-cluster and act jealous. This tendency of group marriages toward instability is the worst theoretical aspect of polygamy IMO. -- Tsam

Well why not target the REAL issues, not lump the things that CAN happen in
polygamy, I wonder.

S

"Tsam Nami" <tsam-nami@tidal.wav> wrote in message
news:KbJ6c.48463$aT1.42684@newsread1.news.pas.eart hlink.net... "Stephanie Stowe" <stowe@whackthisvsac.org> wrote in message news:Kv2dnQx7nuiRxsbd4p2dnA@telcove.net... I have a question though regarding the slippery slope "argument." Folks have argued that gay marriage will "open the door" to marrying monkeys
and polygamy. What is wrong, in theory, with polygamy? The only things I
have seen which are horrid is the way it has been applied in high profile Mormon cases. What would be wrong with ploygamy by a bunch of consenting
adults? I cannot think of a thing. Except the cost of benefits for the family of a single employee could get high. In practice, there seem to be two kinds of polygamous families, those where women have a voice and those where they do not. The latter is horribly wrong IMO (as in Fresno's tragedy). In the former case, the larger number of women in the family can lead to different norms for behavior, arguably an improvement. But when more than 2 people are related, there natually is a tendency to sub-cluster and act jealous. This tendency of group marriages toward instability is the worst theoretical aspect of polygamy IMO. -- Tsam

Well why not target the REAL issues, not lump the things that CAN happen in
polygamy, I wonder.

S

Stephanie Stowe wrote: "Doug Anderson" <ethelthelogremovethis@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:3Bi6c.33434$JL2.389057@attbi_s03... Tony Miller <tony@cigardiary.com> writes: On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 04:33:48 GMT, Larry Kessler <l1k2e3s4s5l6e7r@w8t.n9e0t> wrote:> Tony Miller <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote:>>> It'll only be a matter of time until "Loving v. Virginia for gays" hits>> the SCOTUS.>> And it'll wreak just as much destructive power on the country as> Loving v. Virginia did: NONE. Proof by blatant assertion. Cool. Larry didn't claim to be offering proof. It's his opinion. (Mine too.) The situations do seem somewhat analogous, and for as much as people keep talking about the "threat to traditional marriage" and "defense of marriage" no one has been able to describe in what way allowing gays to marry each other threatens traditional marriage. I know you don't like the idea. But you haven't been able to describe how it threatens traditional marriage either, and don't respond when someone actually asks you for details. I have a question though regarding the slippery slope "argument." Folks have argued that gay marriage will "open the door" to marrying monkeys and polygamy. What is wrong, in theory, with polygamy? The only things I have seen which are horrid is the way it has been applied in high profile Mormon cases. What would be wrong with ploygamy by a bunch of consenting adults? I cannot think of a thing. Except the cost of benefits for the family of a single employee could get high. S

OK, let's play a game called "devil's advocate". We *could* open the door
ALL the way, and let anybody - or anybodies - who desire to get married, to get
married. How about that possibility? If not, why not?

Perhaps the meaning of the term "marriage" should become open-ended. This
kinda reminds me of .... "Open Marriage" As for the societal institution,
let it come out as it comes out. Hey! Maybe we can all have a love fest,
and become yippies!! "You flower child, YOU"! (Ooops, wrong
generation...... hmmm, where is my LSD.....? who stole my LSD??)

Stephanie Stowe wrote: "Doug Anderson" <ethelthelogremovethis@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:3Bi6c.33434$JL2.389057@attbi_s03... Tony Miller <tony@cigardiary.com> writes: On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 04:33:48 GMT, Larry Kessler <l1k2e3s4s5l6e7r@w8t.n9e0t> wrote:> Tony Miller <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote:>>> It'll only be a matter of time until "Loving v. Virginia for gays" hits>> the SCOTUS.>> And it'll wreak just as much destructive power on the country as> Loving v. Virginia did: NONE. Proof by blatant assertion. Cool. Larry didn't claim to be offering proof. It's his opinion. (Mine too.) The situations do seem somewhat analogous, and for as much as people keep talking about the "threat to traditional marriage" and "defense of marriage" no one has been able to describe in what way allowing gays to marry each other threatens traditional marriage. I know you don't like the idea. But you haven't been able to describe how it threatens traditional marriage either, and don't respond when someone actually asks you for details. I have a question though regarding the slippery slope "argument." Folks have argued that gay marriage will "open the door" to marrying monkeys and polygamy. What is wrong, in theory, with polygamy? The only things I have seen which are horrid is the way it has been applied in high profile Mormon cases. What would be wrong with ploygamy by a bunch of consenting adults? I cannot think of a thing. Except the cost of benefits for the family of a single employee could get high. S

OK, let's play a game called "devil's advocate". We *could* open the door
ALL the way, and let anybody - or anybodies - who desire to get married, to get
married. How about that possibility? If not, why not?

Perhaps the meaning of the term "marriage" should become open-ended. This
kinda reminds me of .... "Open Marriage" As for the societal institution,
let it come out as it comes out. Hey! Maybe we can all have a love fest,
and become yippies!! "You flower child, YOU"! (Ooops, wrong
generation...... hmmm, where is my LSD.....? who stole my LSD??)

On 17 Mar 2004 11:32:02 -0800, Doug Anderson
<ethelthelogremovethis@yahoo.com> wrote:
For those of us who remain interested in this, there is a good articlein the New York Times this morning. Here it the url (freeregistration required):http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/17/national/17MARR.html?hpIf you don't want to read the article the gist of it is: Article IV.1 of the US Consitution states: "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." President Bush has stated that because of this law, if a state allows gay marriage, then other states will have to recognize gay marriages performed in that state. This is part of his case for a constitutional amendment prohibiting gay marriage. Legal scholars (with the exception of President Bush) believe that the states which don't legalize gay marriage will _not_ be required to accept gay marriages made in other states. The precedents cited to justify this belief are that when interracial marriage was legal in some states, and not in others, states where interracial marriage was illegal were not generally required to recognize interracial marriages performed in other states. (And the grounds on which the Supremes found interracial marriage laws unconstitutional were completely unrelated to the "full faith and credit" clause of the constitution.)


If this happens, then all the gays will move to the same state.
Probably California. So what's wrong with all the gays developing
their own state? In fact, the government would be wise to just give
one of the states to them, and that way they will all move toghther.
Once they are all moved, then the US can deny being the government for
that state, and the state can separate from the United States and
become their own independant government.

On 17 Mar 2004 11:32:02 -0800, Doug Anderson
<ethelthelogremovethis@yahoo.com> wrote:
For those of us who remain interested in this, there is a good articlein the New York Times this morning. Here it the url (freeregistration required):http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/17/national/17MARR.html?hpIf you don't want to read the article the gist of it is: Article IV.1 of the US Consitution states: "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." President Bush has stated that because of this law, if a state allows gay marriage, then other states will have to recognize gay marriages performed in that state. This is part of his case for a constitutional amendment prohibiting gay marriage. Legal scholars (with the exception of President Bush) believe that the states which don't legalize gay marriage will _not_ be required to accept gay marriages made in other states. The precedents cited to justify this belief are that when interracial marriage was legal in some states, and not in others, states where interracial marriage was illegal were not generally required to recognize interracial marriages performed in other states. (And the grounds on which the Supremes found interracial marriage laws unconstitutional were completely unrelated to the "full faith and credit" clause of the constitution.)


If this happens, then all the gays will move to the same state.
Probably California. So what's wrong with all the gays developing
their own state? In fact, the government would be wise to just give
one of the states to them, and that way they will all move toghther.
Once they are all moved, then the US can deny being the government for
that state, and the state can separate from the United States and
become their own independant government.

On 3/25/04 6:01 AM, in article lap560d6c5fatgr8kd6731s4jeq1gjnot8@4ax.com,
"hdfgws@windowsXP.com" <hdfgws@windowsXP.com> wrote:
On 17 Mar 2004 11:32:02 -0800, Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@yahoo.com> wrote: For those of us who remain interested in this, there is a good article in the New York Times this morning. Here it the url (free registration required): http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/17/national/17MARR.html?hp If you don't want to read the article the gist of it is: Article IV.1 of the US Consitution states: "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." President Bush has stated that because of this law, if a state allows gay marriage, then other states will have to recognize gay marriages performed in that state. This is part of his case for a constitutional amendment prohibiting gay marriage. Legal scholars (with the exception of President Bush) believe that the states which don't legalize gay marriage will _not_ be required to accept gay marriages made in other states. The precedents cited to justify this belief are that when interracial marriage was legal in some states, and not in others, states where interracial marriage was illegal were not generally required to recognize interracial marriages performed in other states. (And the grounds on which the Supremes found interracial marriage laws unconstitutional were completely unrelated to the "full faith and credit" clause of the constitution.) If this happens, then all the gays will move to the same state. Probably California. So what's wrong with all the gays developing their own state? In fact, the government would be wise to just give one of the states to them, and that way they will all move toghther. Once they are all moved, then the US can deny being the government for that state, and the state can separate from the United States and become their own independant government.

LOL. You CAN'T be this stupid!

On 3/25/04 6:01 AM, in article lap560d6c5fatgr8kd6731s4jeq1gjnot8@4ax.com,
"hdfgws@windowsXP.com" <hdfgws@windowsXP.com> wrote:
On 17 Mar 2004 11:32:02 -0800, Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@yahoo.com> wrote: For those of us who remain interested in this, there is a good article in the New York Times this morning. Here it the url (free registration required): http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/17/national/17MARR.html?hp If you don't want to read the article the gist of it is: Article IV.1 of the US Consitution states: "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." President Bush has stated that because of this law, if a state allows gay marriage, then other states will have to recognize gay marriages performed in that state. This is part of his case for a constitutional amendment prohibiting gay marriage. Legal scholars (with the exception of President Bush) believe that the states which don't legalize gay marriage will _not_ be required to accept gay marriages made in other states. The precedents cited to justify this belief are that when interracial marriage was legal in some states, and not in others, states where interracial marriage was illegal were not generally required to recognize interracial marriages performed in other states. (And the grounds on which the Supremes found interracial marriage laws unconstitutional were completely unrelated to the "full faith and credit" clause of the constitution.) If this happens, then all the gays will move to the same state. Probably California. So what's wrong with all the gays developing their own state? In fact, the government would be wise to just give one of the states to them, and that way they will all move toghther. Once they are all moved, then the US can deny being the government for that state, and the state can separate from the United States and become their own independant government.

LOL. You CAN'T be this stupid!

In article <BC8C2D1C.86EC%fskahrs@pacbell.net>, Freddy Kahrs wrote: On 3/25/04 6:01 AM, in article lap560d6c5fatgr8kd6731s4jeq1gjnot8@4ax.com, "hdfgws@windowsXP.com" <hdfgws@windowsXP.com> wrote: On 17 Mar 2004 11:32:02 -0800, Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@yahoo.com> wrote: For those of us who remain interested in this, there is a good article in the New York Times this morning. Here it the url (free registration required): http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/17/national/17MARR.html?hp If you don't want to read the article the gist of it is: Article IV.1 of the US Consitution states: "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." President Bush has stated that because of this law, if a state allows gay marriage, then other states will have to recognize gay marriages performed in that state. This is part of his case for a constitutional amendment prohibiting gay marriage. Legal scholars (with the exception of President Bush) believe that the states which don't legalize gay marriage will _not_ be required to accept gay marriages made in other states. The precedents cited to justify this belief are that when interracial marriage was legal in some states, and not in others, states where interracial marriage was illegal were not generally required to recognize interracial marriages performed in other states. (And the grounds on which the Supremes found interracial marriage laws unconstitutional were completely unrelated to the "full faith and credit" clause of the constitution.) If this happens, then all the gays will move to the same state. Probably California. So what's wrong with all the gays developing their own state? In fact, the government would be wise to just give one of the states to them, and that way they will all move toghther. Once they are all moved, then the US can deny being the government for that state, and the state can separate from the United States and become their own independant government. LOL. You CAN'T be this stupid!
NEVER underestimate the capacity for stupidity a person is capable
of exhibiting.

In article <BC8C2D1C.86EC%fskahrs@pacbell.net>, Freddy Kahrs wrote: On 3/25/04 6:01 AM, in article lap560d6c5fatgr8kd6731s4jeq1gjnot8@4ax.com, "hdfgws@windowsXP.com" <hdfgws@windowsXP.com> wrote: On 17 Mar 2004 11:32:02 -0800, Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@yahoo.com> wrote: For those of us who remain interested in this, there is a good article in the New York Times this morning. Here it the url (free registration required): http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/17/national/17MARR.html?hp If you don't want to read the article the gist of it is: Article IV.1 of the US Consitution states: "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." President Bush has stated that because of this law, if a state allows gay marriage, then other states will have to recognize gay marriages performed in that state. This is part of his case for a constitutional amendment prohibiting gay marriage. Legal scholars (with the exception of President Bush) believe that the states which don't legalize gay marriage will _not_ be required to accept gay marriages made in other states. The precedents cited to justify this belief are that when interracial marriage was legal in some states, and not in others, states where interracial marriage was illegal were not generally required to recognize interracial marriages performed in other states. (And the grounds on which the Supremes found interracial marriage laws unconstitutional were completely unrelated to the "full faith and credit" clause of the constitution.) If this happens, then all the gays will move to the same state. Probably California. So what's wrong with all the gays developing their own state? In fact, the government would be wise to just give one of the states to them, and that way they will all move toghther. Once they are all moved, then the US can deny being the government for that state, and the state can separate from the United States and become their own independant government. LOL. You CAN'T be this stupid!
NEVER underestimate the capacity for stupidity a person is capable
of exhibiting.