Republicans target same sex marriage

[motorbiking]

I think we are still having a terminology issue.

I would say that the same sex marriages carried out in the DOMA years, in the eight states which allowed it, were lawful. It is just that they weren't recognised at the federal level. Or in other states.

A marriage that is not legally recognised as a marriage is just a ceremony.

If you pass a law..

that permits same sex marriages to be banned and non-recognition of same-sex marriages for all federal purposes, including insurance benefits for government employees, social security survivors' benefits, immigration, bankruptcy, and the filing of joint tax returns.. and also excluded same-sex spouses from the scope of laws protecting families of federal officers, laws evaluating financial aid eligibility, and federal ethics laws applicable to opposite-sex spouses etc.

You are left with a lawful ceremony.

 

[noseall]

I It is just that they weren't recognised at the federal level.

Correct.
MBK gets confused with not recognised and illegal, poor old duffer.
Same sex marriage was never illegal during the DOMA years.

 

[MNW67]

You are left with a lawful ceremony.

And recognition at state level.

That is the point.

 

[motorbiking]

Same sex marriage was never illegal during the DOMA years.

So never is now restricted to never during the DOMA years.

Apart from in all the states where it was banned you mean?

 

[MNW67]

If you pass a law..

that permits same sex marriages to be banned and non-recognition of same-sex marriages for all federal purposes

I think that might be conflating banning and non-recognition. You have added "banning" to the quote taken from Wikipedia, which only mentions non-recognition.

 

[motorbiking]

No there were plenty of states banning same sex marriage. Baker v. Nelson was a challenge to such a ban.

 

[MNW67]

No there were plenty of states banning same sex marriage. Baker v. Nelson was a challenge to such a ban.

This is getting more confusing! Nobody is denying that until recently same sex marriage was not allowed in any state of the USA. The first to allow it was Massachusetts in 2004. Then another seven states allowed it. Then we had the court rulings in 2013 and 2015 which forced all states to allow it.

 

[motorbiking]

This is getting more confusing! Nobody is denying that until recently same sex marriage was not allowed in any state of the USA. The first to allow it was Massachusetts in 2004. Then another seven states allowed it. Then we had the court rulings in 2013 and 2015 which forced all states to allow it.

So you agree that in Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Missouri, Mississippi, Nebraska .. etc they had specific laws banning same sex marriage.

You have to breakdown what a Marriage is: It's a ceremony and/or a legal declaration. if it's just a ceremony, it's not a marriage. If it cannot be a legal declaration it's not a marriage.

Its like arguing a promise is a contract.

 

[MNW67]

So you agree that in Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Missouri, Mississippi, Nebraska .. etc they had specific laws banning same sex marriage.

I don't think anyone on here has ever denied that.

 

[motorbiking]

I don't think anyone on here has ever denied that.

what is a ban - if it not to make something illegal?

bloke A and bloke B have a ceremony to "get married". Great - enjoy, says the state.
Bloke A and B ask for a marriage certificate. Sorry chaps its illegal to issue a marriage certificate to same sex couples.

Nobody is banning them from living as a couple, but they are not married.

 

[motorbiking]

Correct.
MBK gets confused with not recognised and illegal, poor old duffer.
Same sex marriage was never illegal during the DOMA years.

Obergefell vs. Hodges did not legalise same sex marriage, it forced it to be recognised where it had occurred. The "vote" was pretty close, so it's no surprise that someone thinks they may have the numbers to swing it back the other way. There are many that believe marriage is between a man and a woman (by birth) and not what we used to call civil partnerships.

It didn't need to, as it was never deemed illegal in the eyes of the law (US Constitution), in the first place. There is a recognised 'fundamental right to marry' according to the US Constitution.

Clueless Nosenout can't even remember what he's arguing about.

 

[MNW67]

what is a ban - if it not to make something illegal?

bloke A and bloke B have a ceremony to "get married". Great - enjoy, says the state.
Bloke A and B ask for a marriage certificate. Sorry chaps its illegal to issue a marriage certificate to same sex couples.

Nobody is banning them from living as a couple, but they are not married.

I said we shouldn't use the word illegal. That was the whole point of my post. To clarify the terminology. Not to go further down the rabbit hole.

 

[noseall]

So never is now restricted to never during the DOMA years.

Apart from in all the states where it was banned you mean?

Nonsense. It was never illegal for same sex partners/couples to marry during the DOMA years.

 

[motorbiking]

Nonsense. It was never illegal for same sex partners/couples to marry during the DOMA years.

how many did it in states which had a ban?

 

[noseall]

how many did it in states which had a ban?

What marriage ban?
Some states refused to recognise the marriage. The marriages still went ahead. It wasn't illegal for same sex couples to marry during the DOMA years.