T.E.A. and Solipsism with Lolita - How Conservatives Killed the T.E.A. Party

[Luis Gonzalez]

I think the DOMA clause was unnecessary, since states already have a public policy exemption.  And the FF&C clause was written primarily for judgments rather than legislation.  Until the USSC invoked the 14th amendment, interracial marriages which were legal in most states were not allowed or recognized in some.  States frequently do not recognize licenses issued by other states, requiring their own standards not the issuing state.

At some point, the SCOTUS may well find that bans on either the issuance of gay marriage licenses or the recognition by other states violates the 14th Amendment.  Only then will the issue be settled.

Next will come other types of marriages, such as between father and daughter, underage, multiple spouses, etc.  What California legalizes may not be recognized in South Carolina.

A marriage, certainly the licensing and recording aspect of it, falls under the "public records" verbiage of the FF&C Clause.

There is quite a bit of case law addressing how marriages that may be legal in one State will be handled in States where they are not. The full text of the FF&C assigns to Congress the task to figure out the manner in which those acts will be handled, but grants it no power to create wholesale exemptions.

Insofar as the slippery slope argument goes, that ship sailed the day that Protestants opted to walk away from marriage as an unbreakable sacrament.

[GourmetDan]

Insofar as the slippery slope argument goes, that ship sailed the day that Protestants opted to walk away from marriage as an unbreakable sacrament.

Durned Protestants...

[MACVSOG68]

A marriage, certainly the licensing and recording aspect of it, falls under the "public records" verbiage of the FF&C Clause.

There is quite a bit of case law addressing how marriages that may be legal in one State will be handled in States where they are not. The full text of the FF&C assigns to Congress the task to figure out the manner in which those acts will be handled, but grants it no power to create wholesale exemptions.

Insofar as the slippery slope argument goes, that ship sailed the day that Protestants opted to walk away from marriage as an unbreakable sacrament.

While I agree that DOMA is likely to be overturned as to language, it won't necessarily follow the logic that was used to overturn Section 3 last year.  And wholesale exemptions are what federalism is all about.  As to public records, that would mean any license issued by a state must be recognized by all other states, and of course that's not true.  So I don't think it's as clear cut as the proponents of same-sex marriage want it to be.  It took until 1967 for the ban on issuance or recognition of interracial marriages in states to be overturned.

As for the slippery slope argument, like it or not, it's there.  The public policy exemption, if it didn't exist, would basically toss out the 10th Amendment.  And it's only when usage of the exemption violates either the Fifth or Fourteenth Amendments, does it come within the jurisdiction of the federal courts. 

It's not out of the question that polygamy may one day be allowed in a liberal state.  If so, I doubt most other states would accept that document should the group elect to move.  Utah can't because it's unconstitutional in that state. 

[Luis Gonzalez]

While I agree that DOMA is likely to be overturned as to language, it won't necessarily follow the logic that was used to overturn Section 3 last year.  And wholesale exemptions are what federalism is all about.  As to public records, that would mean any license issued by a state must be recognized by all other states, and of course that's not true.  So I don't think it's as clear cut as the proponents of same-sex marriage want it to be.  It took until 1967 for the ban on issuance or recognition of interracial marriages in states to be overturned.

As for the slippery slope argument, like it or not, it's there.  The public policy exemption, if it didn't exist, would basically toss out the 10th Amendment.  And it's only when usage of the exemption violates either the Fifth or Fourteenth Amendments, does it come within the jurisdiction of the federal courts. 

It's not out of the question that polygamy may one day be allowed in a liberal state.  If so, I doubt most other states would accept that document should the group elect to move.  Utah can't because it's unconstitutional in that state.

Legislative wholesale exemptions to Constitutional clauses is what Federalism is all about.

That's a novel concept.

So it is your opinion that Congress could write a law saying that a getting a divorce in one State doesn't necessarily mean that you are divorced in every State?

Good news for lawyers.

[Luis Gonzalez]

As to public records, that would mean any license issued by a state must be recognized by all other states, and of course that's not true.

How many driver's licenses do you own?

How many auto tags are hanging from your bumper?

The company that I work for is licensed and incorporated as a Florida company, but we do business all over the US based on that corporate charter and that business license.

My previous marriage was dissolved in Florida, but (last I checked) I'm divorced everywhere. 

[MACVSOG68]

Legislative wholesale exemptions to Constitutional clauses is what Federalism is all about.

That's a novel concept.

So it is your opinion that Congress could write a law saying that a getting a divorce in one State doesn't necessarily mean that you are divorced in every State?

Good news for lawyers.

I don't know that divorce has ever been an issue involving the public policy exemption.  So I guess we don't really know the answer. 

[truth_seeker]

It's in the DNA, this high-mindedness of theirs. Just as it's in our DNA to move in the real world – not in leftist platitudes, secured by the Founders grand intention for a workable society.

This tension between right and left is the Yin Yang in the body politic that will always be with us.

The art is to be empathetic with the left's concerns, but skeptical of their methods, and to warn they rarely reach the goals. Most of the time they build huge costly bureaucracies requiring money permanently, without making a dent in the original problem.

The best example is lifetime welfare.

[MACVSOG68]

How many driver's licenses do you own?

How many auto tags are hanging from your bumper?

The company that I work for is licensed and incorporated as a Florida company, but we do business all over the US based on that corporate charter and that business license.

My previous marriage was dissolved in Florida, but (last I checked) I'm divorced everywhere.

If you move into another state, you will have to get their driver's license and comply with their licensing laws.  Moving though a state has never been an issue, and gays who are married AFAIK, can freely move through states that have gay marriage bans.  Doesn't mean the state will recognize the marriage for whatever benefits might otherwise accrue in that state.

Reciprocity isn't a constitutional right, nor is it mandated for most state laws.  The courts look at each challenge, and will usually make a decision based on 5th or 14th Amendment rights that all Americans have (due process and equal treatment).  I believe there has been at least one lower court ruling on gay marriage reciprocity.  But considering the DOMA decision last year was a 5-4 decision, it will no doubt be a heck of a rumble.

[Bigun]

Rule #1 of non-expansionism:

The Federal government only has those powers specifically enumerated in the Constitution.

The Federal Defense of Marriage Act
Section 3

"... the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife."

Where does the Constitution give the Federal government the power to define marriage for ANY purpose?

Please show me the exact Article and Section where that power is enumerated.

Rule #1 of conservatism:

The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land.

Constitution of the United States of America
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.

The Federal Defense of Marriage Act
Section 2

No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.

Where does the Constitution give Congress the power to legislate a wholesale exemption to the Constitution?

Please show me the exact Article and Section where that power is enumerated.

The Act is expansive in the fact that it usurped traditional State's rights to define what constitutes a marriage by defining the institution at the Federal level. Limiting the Federal government to those powers specifically enumerated in the Constitution protects the concepts of Federalism and State Sovereignty set in place by the Founders via the Constitution.

BTW, it absolutely ridiculous to maintain that there were any number of conservatives opposing passage of the Federal DoMA, and no liberals opposing it, which is what you said in your usual unsupported blanket statement. You're entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.

The only Republican member of Congress who voted against the DoMA was Log Cabin Republican Steve Gunderson. Democrats cast 79 votes against the bill with 15 abstentions.

Thanks for proving my point for me.

I've been very busy today and thus late getting back to a discussion which has largely passed me by but I will make you a deal Luis.

Given the fact that as far as I know , the federal government does not issue marriage licenses I will give up my support for DOMA at the same time we do away with every other part of the federal government not specifically authorized by the Constitution. In the mean time please know that I do NOT subscribe to the line of thinking you are espousing here. Defining the meaning of certain words in law - in this case marriage - does NOT constitute an expansion of the federal government!

[Luis Gonzalez]

If you move into another state, you will have to get their driver's license and comply with their licensing laws.  Moving though a state has never been an issue, and gays who are married AFAIK, can freely move through states that have gay marriage bans.  Doesn't mean the state will recognize the marriage for whatever benefits might otherwise accrue in that state.

Reciprocity isn't a constitutional right, nor is it mandated for most state laws.  The courts look at each challenge, and will usually make a decision based on 5th or 14th Amendment rights that all Americans have (due process and equal treatment).  I believe there has been at least one lower court ruling on gay marriage reciprocity.  But considering the DOMA decision last year was a 5-4 decision, it will no doubt be a heck of a rumble.

But I won't have (in most cases) to retake the driving exam, etc. The change in license and tag is for taxation and change of address purposes, so my ability to drive is transferred from one State to the other without any need for me to meet further requirements.

I believe that at the end of the day (I detest that saying), anti same-sex marriage laws will go the way of anti-miscegenation laws.

I get the clue from Darling:

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man.'"

[Luis Gonzalez]

I've been very busy today and thus late getting back to a discussion which has largely passed me by but I will make you a deal Luis.

Given the fact that as far as I know , the federal government does not issue marriage licenses I will give up my support for DOMA at the same time we do away with every other part of the federal government not specifically authorized by the Constitution. In the mean time please know that I do NOT subscribe to the line of thinking you are espousing here. Defining the meaning of certain words in law - in this case marriage - does NOT constitute an expansion of the federal government!

Given that my original point was that conservatives are every bit as willing to violate the Constitution as all other political groups, your post bring the conversation around full circle.

Thanks for proving my point.

[MACVSOG68]

But I won't have (in most cases) to retake the driving exam, etc. The change in license and tag is for taxation and change of address purposes, so my ability to drive is transferred from one State to the other without any need for me to meet further requirements.

I believe that at the end of the day (I detest that saying), anti same-sex marriage laws will go the way of anti-miscegenation laws.

I get the clue from Darling:

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man.'"

Not sure how South Carolina works it now, but when I moved here I had to take their written test.  I think most states have certain reciprocities based on agreements worked out rather than due to any constitutional issues, at least with state laws.  Compacts are entered into all the time.  Also other licenses such as medical, attorney, CPA etc aren't necessarily reciprocal. 

But I do agree that ultimately, the USSC will change its position on Baker v Nelson, due more to a change in social attitudes in the Country rather than any epiphany, and it will likely be up to Kennedy. 

Another time perhaps to discuss the (IMHO) differences between Loving v Virginia and gay marriage as a 14th Amendment issue.

[Oceander]

I don't disagree.  However, the last successful GOP presidential candidate won with a plurality that included these folks.  So far, I don't see any evidence that moderates can be moved to the GOP, although moderates themselves often claim if we just throw the SoCons under the bus, they'll come in droves.  Well, the GOP in most of the northeast states has done just that, and where are they?

You know that I am no SoCon.  But I see no reason to intentionally antagonize that faction of the party.  When they propose something stupid - like public funding of churches, mandatory prayer in the schools, the teaching of creationism or a constitutional amendment banning abortion - then I will oppose those policies.  But otherwise I am not going to intentionally denigrate decent, God-fearing people who are usually model citizens.

What I hate, what I detest, what I am fed to the teeth with, is the demonization that both sides of the party have heaped on each other.  Sorry, but the SoCons are as guilty of this vice as are the e-GOPers (an ugly term, but why stop being ugly now).  The level of personal hatred seeping into both the SoCons and e-GOPers for each other is disgusting and the only people it benefits are the democrats because not only does it weaken us directly, it gives them plenty of ammunition to use on us.

There is, honestly, only one real difference I've noticed twixt the two:  the SoCons have a degree of self-satisfied sanctimony that I find repulsive.  That's not to say the e-GOPers aren't sanctimonious, but the SoCons have pretty much cornered the market on that one.

[Bigun]

Given that my original point was that conservatives are every bit as willing to violate the Constitution as all other political groups, your post bring the conversation around full circle.

Thanks for proving my point.

Uh Huh! RIGHT!!!

[Smokin Joe]

TeaParty.org - TeaParty.schmorgasbord

Never been there - don't ever plan to go there.  They are just an organization that is trying to BE the tea party, I guess.  There is no official Tea PARTY.  No official Tea Party WEBSITE.  No ballot that has the Tea Party listed on it.  No national Tea Party convention - only a bunch of groups trying to establish themselves as the establishment.  It's a necessary process, hopefully the fiscal conservative ideology will win the day.

The website.  Is that all you got out of my answer?

How do you have a national office for a grassroots movement?

En masse, call it what you will, but TEA party groups are, of necessity local, where the rubber meets the road.

[geronl]

Without social conservatives you have the Pedophile Party

Good luck!

[massadvj]

Without social conservatives you have the Pedophile Party

Good luck!

So there is no moral ground between social conservatives and pedophiles?  You are either one or the other?