Pilot's Political Orientation

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:


"Martin Hotze" wrote in message
...

Well, since same sex marriage does not exist, no, I have no problem with
it.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

in Message-ID: .net
you wrote that gays marry.


Yes. What's your point?

Sigh

Steven is claiming that gays marry people that are not of the same sex.
True in some cases, I suppose, but completely irrelevant.

Which he knows, of course.

It's just him playing his games. It avoids having to deal with the internal
inconsistency in an administration claiming to be for freedom also coming
out against the idea same-sex marriage...to the point of promoting the idea
of a constitutional ban.

- Andrew

"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
online.com...


It avoids having to deal with the internal
inconsistency in an administration claiming to be for freedom also coming
out against the idea same-sex marriage...to the point of promoting the
idea
of a constitutional ban.

It's not about gay marriage. No doubt they are against gay marriage, they
should be. The main issue is the US Constitution. I got married in
Minnesota. The Constitution says that all states must recognize my marriage
and all things that naturally occur as a result of that marriage, such as
hospital visitation, benefits, etc. If California passes a law making gay
marriage legal then all 49 other states would have to recognize it. No way
in hell this will ever happen. Therefore the feds will need to solve this
problem, one way or the other. The same principle applies with your drivers
license. Can you imagine what would happen if states didn't recognize other
states drivers licenses?

Newps wrote:

Therefore the feds will need to solve this
problem, one way or the other.

You'll have to be more clear for me, I'm afraid, as I'm not seeing "the
problem" with the Constitution. If states choose to act as you describe,
failing to recognize either drivers licenses or marriage licenses, they're
in violation. Enforce as necessary.

That would be unfortunate if made necessary, as enforcement always is. But
I'm still not clear on "the problem" you're seeing.

- Andrew

"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
online.com...
Newps wrote:

Therefore the feds will need to solve this
problem, one way or the other.

You'll have to be more clear for me, I'm afraid, as I'm not seeing "the
problem" with the Constitution. If states choose to act as you describe,
failing to recognize either drivers licenses or marriage licenses, they're
in violation. Enforce as necessary.

That's the point of the ammendment.

Newps wrote:


"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
online.com...
Newps wrote:

Therefore the feds will need to solve this
problem, one way or the other.

You'll have to be more clear for me, I'm afraid, as I'm not seeing "the
problem" with the Constitution. If states choose to act as you describe,
failing to recognize either drivers licenses or marriage licenses,
they're
in violation. Enforce as necessary.

That's the point of the ammendment.

I still don't understand what problem you're seeing. If some states permit
same-sex marriage and some do not, this would be as important as the fact
that states use different criteria for driving licenses. The federal
government is responsible for ensuring (and enforcing, should it come to
that unfortunate extreme) that the various criteria of each state are
respected by the other states.

Where is the problem that needs to be solved?

- Andrew

"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
online.com...
I still don't understand what problem you're seeing. If some states
permit
same-sex marriage and some do not, this would be as important as the fact
that states use different criteria for driving licenses. The federal
government is responsible for ensuring (and enforcing, should it come to
that unfortunate extreme) that the various criteria of each state are
respected by the other states.

Where is the problem that needs to be solved?

By the constitution Florida must honor my Montana drivers license. What
criteria each state puts on its own residents is irrelavant. Or the fact
that here in Montana a 14 year old that lives on a ranch can get a license,
drive to Minnesota where the youngest licensee is 16, and drive around all
day and night. They may not even contemplate not recognizing it. With gay
marriage at least 45 states will laugh in your face if we were married and
requested normal benefits available to normal people. Many states actually
have laws that say marriage is between a man and a woman, some however
don't. So now we have a problem that by definition is a federal problem.
If two gay people get married out west in the land of fruits and nuts that
is California the US Constitution says my state must recognize that. No way
in hell that will ever happen. So, federally, the question has to be
answered.

If two gay people get married out west in the land of fruits and nuts that
is California the US Constitution says my state must recognize that. No way
in hell that will ever happen. So, federally, the question has to be
answered.


Federally, the question HAS been answered. You just don't like the answer.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

"Newps" wrote in message
...

"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
online.com...
I still don't understand what problem you're seeing. If some states
permit
same-sex marriage and some do not, this would be as important as the
fact
that states use different criteria for driving licenses. The federal
government is responsible for ensuring (and enforcing, should it come to
that unfortunate extreme) that the various criteria of each state are
respected by the other states.

Where is the problem that needs to be solved?

By the constitution Florida must honor my Montana drivers license. What
criteria each state puts on its own residents is irrelavant. Or the fact
that here in Montana a 14 year old that lives on a ranch can get a
license,
drive to Minnesota where the youngest licensee is 16, and drive around all
day and night. They may not even contemplate not recognizing it. With
gay
marriage at least 45 states will laugh in your face if we were married and
requested normal benefits available to normal people. Many states
actually
have laws that say marriage is between a man and a woman, some however
don't. So now we have a problem that by definition is a federal problem.
If two gay people get married out west in the land of fruits and nuts that
is California the US Constitution says my state must recognize that. No
way
in hell that will ever happen. So, federally, the question has to be
answered.

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. And the
Congress may be general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts,
Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.



Section 2. The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges
and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

"Newps" wrote in message
...

Or the fact that here in Montana a 14 year old that lives on a
ranch can get a license, drive to Minnesota where the youngest
licensee is 16, and drive around all day and night.


A 14 year old that lives on a ranch can get a license but a 14 year old that
does not live on a ranch cannot get one?

Newps wrote:

So, federally, the question has to be answered.

Federally, it has been answered. And your State WILL toe the line if someone married
in California moves there and files suit in Federal court.

George Patterson
This marriage is off to a shaky start. The groom just asked the band to
play "Your cheatin' heart", and the bride just requested "Don't come home
a'drinkin' with lovin' on your mind".