• A reminder that Forum Moderator applications are currently still open! If you're interested in joining an active team of moderators for one of the biggest Pokémon forums on the internet, click here for info.
  • Due to the recent changes with Twitter's API, it is no longer possible for Bulbagarden forum users to login via their Twitter account. If you signed up to Bulbagarden via Twitter and do not have another way to login, please contact us here with your Twitter username so that we can get you sorted.

Another brick out of the wall!

Status
Not open for further replies.
F

Fig

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2002
Messages
12,779
Reaction score
1,046
By a 187-147 vote; Spain has now decided to legalize gay marriage, firmly rejecting the catholic church's pressure and conservative reluctance. Coming in as it does just days after a similar vote in Canada, this is good news indeed :-D.

Of course, the US still won't do a thing there, but I'm not particularly bothered. The US always tend to trail behind just about everyone else in the western world on social issues, environmental issues, etc; nothing new there.

attachment.php
 
Last edited:
Eh, if you ask me it's really up to the churches and not the countries. Even at the politiacal level, here in the US, marriage is a reserved power for the states, so our federal government is really not supposed to pass marriage laws...
 
Jeff said:
Eh, if you ask me it's really up to the churches and not the countries. Even at the politiacal level, here in the US, marriage is a reserved power for the states, so our federal government is really not supposed to pass marriage laws...
Click to expand...

Wrong, sort of. The feds can and should pass a law stating that a marriage in North Carolina doesn't have to be recognized in Jersey. They shouldn't pass a ban on gay marriage, but give each state the right to deal with it.
 
The chuches should decide who they marry, yes.

But marriage is ALSO a social construct which has legal value, it has ALWAYS been that just as much as a religious thing (before the "Marriage belong to us!" loudmouths start ramming up that pathetic excuse for an argument), and it should remain that, too. The LEGAL institution, marriage, should not be under the control of any sort of church.

And, that social construct should be defined by the proper government. In places like Canada, etc, that's the federal government.
 
Damian Silverblade said:
By a 187-147 vote; Spain has now decided to legalize gay marriage, firmly rejecting the catholic church's pressure and conservative reluctance. Coming in as it does just days after a similar vote in Canada, this is good news indeed :-D.

Of course, the US still won't do a thing there, but I'm not particularly bothered. The US always tend to trail behind just about everyone else in the western world on social issues, environmental issues, etc; nothing new there.

attachment.php
Click to expand...

Don't lump the whole US in one boat! Vermont and Connecticut have civil unions, Maine, New Jersey, Maryland and California all have domestic partnership laws...

And as Massachusetts is a (nominally) sovereign state and legalized same-sex marriage way before Spain did, so its flag should be on there too. Though we know it has an ugly flag. :p
 
Why aren't you on my ignore list yet?
 
Because admins aren't allowed to put people on their ignore list, I believe.

Edit : Nope, you can.

And Birdboy, Mass is no more a country than Québec is, deal with it :p
 
Last edited:
Mozz said:
Wrong, sort of. The feds can and should pass a law stating that a marriage in North Carolina doesn't have to be recognized in Jersey. They shouldn't pass a ban on gay marriage, but give each state the right to deal with it.
Click to expand...

"Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State"

DOMA looks a little iffy when placed next to this little phrase.

However my burning question is if a gay couple from Canada, Spain, the Netherlands, or Belgium moves to a non-Massachusetts US state, would the state have to honor the marriage license of the couple, and if they didn't, would any of those four countries push diplomatically to get the marriage recognized.
 
Girafarig_Magcargo said:
"Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State"

DOMA looks a little iffy when placed next to this little phrase.

However my burning question is if a gay couple from Canada, Spain, the Netherlands, or Belgium moves to a non-Massachusetts US state, would the state have to honor the marriage license of the couple, and if they didn't, would any of those four countries push diplomatically to get the marriage recognized.
Click to expand...

That's why it would sadly have to be a constitutional amendment.

The USA does not have to accept marraiges from outside its territories. I don't know how hard they're pushing for us to recognize them, if at all.
 
Mozz said:
That's why it would sadly have to be a constitutional amendment.

The USA does not have to accept marraiges from outside its territories. I don't know how hard they're pushing for us to recognize them, if at all.
Click to expand...

Just because it is added to the Constitution doesn't mean it is constitutionally correct.
 
Er.. Constitutionally correct? Meaning it doesn't agree with your views?
 
Mozz said:
Er.. Constitutionally correct? Meaning it doesn't agree with your views?
Click to expand...

No, then it'd be "correct to me".

Constitutioinally correct means that it agrees with the Constitution. Seems like an obvious thing.
 
It does. All it is would be is say "Full Faith and Credit does not apply to marriage"
 
Of course one could argue it completely violate the SPIRIT of the thing, but it'd be perfectly legit.
 
The first amendment guarantees that the US will not support one religion over another in ANY field. But the question is: If all the religions say the same thing, then isn't technically constitutionally correct to ban it? Of course, I'm sure all the religions aren't against it, but does my point stand...or am I dead wrong?
 
The first amendment guarantees that the US will not support one religion over another in ANY field. But the question is: If all the religions say the same thing, then isn't technically constitutionally correct to ban it? Of course, I'm sure all the religions aren't against it, but does my point stand...or am I dead wrong?
Click to expand...

Freedom of religion also means freedom FROM religion. Implying that something should be made a law because every religion says it (they don't anyways, by the way) implies that everyone who doesn't participate from religion should be forced to follow religious practices anyways . . .
 
See, I don't remember it every saying freedom FROM religion. Just that the US would not garner favor for one religion or another, and all would be treated equally.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Click to expand...

To me that says that America will not have an official religion, nor will it prevent people from practicing their religion of choice.
 
The Lemon standard is the way laws are constructed and reasoned s.t. there is a reason for the law that is not religious in nature.
 
Mozz said:
Wrong, sort of. The feds can and should pass a law stating that a marriage in North Carolina doesn't have to be recognized in Jersey. They shouldn't pass a ban on gay marriage, but give each state the right to deal with it.
Click to expand...
why do you say that? then ANY marriage in North Carolina could be happily ignored in Jersey for no reason at all, and couples could potentially have a hell of a time moving from one state to another within the same country. or should they just have to marry again?
 
Just re-apply for a marriage license in New Jersey, just like you have to re-apply for a driver's license.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom