What was I thinking?

Thursday, February 01, 2007


OK, so someone give me a quick lesson on the United States Constitution, specifically

Article IV, which begins: 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 there of.

The 14th Amendment, which begins: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction equal protection of the laws.

With this in mind, I wonder how individual states and the lawmakers in them can do this sort of thing WITHOUT someone taking it up with the Supreme Court -- and who advises these so-called "lawmakers?"

Wyoming Senate Passes Ban On Out-Of-State Gay Marriages
by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff

Posted: January 31, 2007 - 7:00 pm ET

(Cheyenne, Wyoming) The Wyoming State Senate passed legislation Wednesday that would ban the state from recognizing same-sex marriages performed in other states or countries where they are legal.

The bill passed 21-8 generally along party lines, with most Democrats opposed and most Republicans in favor of the bill.

If the bill passes the House and signed into law by the governor it would mean Wyoming gays could not travel to Canada or any of the European countries where same-sex couples can marry and have their marriages recognized when they return home.

It also would mean if a same-sex couple moved to Wyoming because of work or even visited the state their marriages would be considered void in Wyoming.

One of the few Republicans to vote against the measure, Sen. Cale Case, said Wyoming already has a poor reputation for its treatment of gays as a result of the 1998 murder of Matthew Shepard.

Wyoming already has a so-called Defense of Marriage law that mandates marriages conducted in the state must be between a man and woman. The new measure would strengthen that act.

But opponents say the new provisions will make it harder for companies and universities to attract the most qualified people.

Supporters of the bill say they only want to strengthen traditional marriage.

Wyoming calls itself 'The Equality State'.

You really have to laugh at the irony of that last sentence, don't you?

On the flip side of the coin, Connecticut lawmakers have introduced a bill that would legalize same sex marriage in that state.

Oppponents, naturally, claim that the concept of marriage goes all the way back to Christ (who never married -- not sure how that fits into their logic). While it may be true that the CONCEPT of marriage goes back to Biblical days, the practice of marriage in front of a priest, or in a church, only dates back to the 1500s -- which makes the argument of marriage being a "sacred institution, blessed by God" nothing more than wishful thinking.

In ancient times, women were either "captured" or "purchased" into marriage -- that act of capture or purchase actually being the "marriage ceremony." In some cultures, a large celebratory dinner was the ceremony. And interestingly enough, the Catholic Church recognizes that "...yet among many uncivilized peoples marriage has taken place, and still takes place, without any formal ceremony whatever. " The Catholic Church herself did not classify marriage as a sacrament until 1563.

So much for the argument of "sacred institution."

Anyway, the leading oponents of this legislation, The Family Institute, makes the same old tired argument that these marriages are a threat to the institution of marriages (and these folks NEVER EVER EVER explain HOW it's a threat to the institution, just that it is).

Love Makes a Family head Anne Stanback argues "Divorce is a threat to marriage. Infidelity, domestic violence and losing your job (are) a threat to marriage, marriage is not a threat to marriage."

Right on, sister!


  • At 2/01/2007 3:18 PM, Blogger Sandra said…

    I'm still hoping that when we get a new "Decider" in office, this will change.

  • At 2/01/2007 8:37 PM, Blogger SassyFemme said…

    Meant to comment when I read here earlier, but got sidetracked at the CT Love Makes a Family site. Just thanks for putting this up here, since it led me there, and I decided it's something I want to somehow get involved with, and at the very least give some $$$ to.

  • At 2/02/2007 9:10 AM, Blogger patti_cake said…

    You took the words right out of my mouth.. Right On Sistah!

    I'll say it once if i've said it a million times. Why can't people just live and let live?
    I don't give a hoot if sally and jane get married or sally and bob or bob and jim. Just as long as said couples love each other, and treat themselves and others well. That's all that really matters.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home