No, not some judge's words in Mississippi, but the determination of the European Court of Human Rights. No, really (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2117920/Gay-marriage-human-right-European-ruling-torpedoes-Coalition-stance.html#ixzz1plazBDyA).


Same-sex marriages are not a human right, European judges have ruled.

Their decision shreds the claim by ministers that gay marriage is a universal human right and that same-sex couples have a right to marry because their mutual commitment is just as strong as that of husbands and wives.

The ruling was made by judges of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg following a case involving a lesbian couple in a civil partnership who complained the French courts would not allow them to adopt a child as a couple.

Who would've thought that a European human rights court would reject the idea that gay marriage is a human right? And not only that, but they said unmarried couples don't have the same status as married couples.


‘With regard to married couples, the court considers that in view of the social, personal, and legal consequences of marriage, the applicants’ legal situation could not be said to be comparable to that of married couples.’

Surely lightning is about to strike Strasbourg.

A random act of judicial common sense. Does this ruling apply to France only ? Do the sovereign nations of the artificial construct called the EU still have a right to make their own laws ?

Common sense has been found in France at last

I would expect the same ruling here in the US, if someone living is a state that does not recognize same sex marriage attempted to sue that state in federal court. I sincerely doubt that the Supreme Court would issue a ruling requiring all states to recognize same sex marriage. Note that this ruling does not prohibit same sex marriage - and indeed several European states already recognize same sex marriage - it merely states that the Court of Human Rights can't mandate that all states accept same sex marriage. Sort of like the situation we have here in the US right now.

True ebaines... however ,I'm on record that these various state laws will result in a court ruling favoring a national law in support of gay marriage.
I base that on the 'Full faith and Credit ' clause in the Constitution .
I fully expect that a gay couple will get married in one state ;move to another that has no gay marriage ,and insist their "rights" are being violated if the new state doesn't recognize their marriage . And they will be right.
That is why these individual state decisions will have national implication.

Hello:

We are marching towards marriage equality here in the US. I don't know HOW it'll be accomplished. There's LOTS of ways it can be.

Whether you agree with it or not, you CAN see the trend, no?

excon

Tomder: given the current "defense of marriage" national law I don't believe what you're saying will occur. But it will certainly be interesting to see the twists and turns that will occur as people who have been married in one state move to another. Keep in mind you already have a situation where a gay couple legally married in NH can't file as married on their federal income taxes. If that stands up in federal court then I don't see the courts doing much more.

I've posted before about this hypotethetical: if a person marries someone of the same sex in NY, then moves to TX can they get a divorce? No, since in TX's eyes they were never legally married in the first place. Can that person then marry someone else of the opposite sex in TX? Yes. So - that person is now married to two different people. In NY that person is considered a bigamist, while in TX not. Now if that person later visits NY (or any other state that recognizes same sex marriage) can the local authorities arrest him/her on charges of bigamy? I think so. What a mess.

Whether you agree with it or not, you CAN see the trend, no?

Yes indeed. But to be honest I would prefer that we scrap the word "marriage" from all laws and replace with "civil union." Leave the word "marriage" to the church, but give all legal rights to anyone who has a civil union license (as opposed to a marriage license) from the state. But I guess that would be too complicated.

DOMA was declared unconstitutional The Obama adm. Will not defend the law in court . I agree with your examples as the law currently applies. I just think eventually SCOTUS will be the final arbiter.. (oye vey)

Yes indeed. But to be honest I would prefer that we scrap the word "marriage" from all laws and replace with "civil union." Leave the word "marriage" to the church, but give all legal rights to anyone who has a civil union license (as opposed to a marriage license) from the state. But I guess that would be too complicated.

That would be the reasonable approach

that would be the reasonable approachHello tom:

And, that's a reasoned response to it.

excon

I just think eventually SCOTUS will be the final arbiter .. (oye vey)Hello again,

The national conversation has been forwarded.

As long as there are civil rights attached to the word marriage, we either have to DETACH them, as ebaines suggested above, or we need to include EVERYBODY.

The reason you said oy vey, is because you KNOW the Supreme Court can only rule ONE way. Certainly, as long as there are rights enjoyed by SOME, and NOT by others, it's a violation of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

excon

No I say oy vey because it is NOT the Court's place to make such policy.

No I say oy vey because it is NOT the Court's place to make such policy.Hello again, tom:

So, who's around to enforce the Constitution?? You don't think the people can VOTE on Constitutional rights, do you?

Maybe you can't say the words with a straight keypad.. But, I invite you to say the words, that the equal protection clause ISN'T designed for this specific purpose... Never mind. You'll say that.. Then what does that clause mean?

excon

The current marriage laws comply with the Equal Protection clause. Every American of legal age, is treated the same by our marriage laws. We can only marry if we are unmarried, and if the person we wish to marry is eligible to marry. We can only marry a person if that person wants to marry us back. We can't marry a close relative. And, yes, we must marry someone of the opposite sex.

Equal rules. Equal protection. Anyone who wants to follow the rules of marriage can marry. Anyone who doesn't, doesn't have to.
Gays have the right to change the laws if they can But make no mistake ,the marriage laws (even in the state that permit gay marriage ) are equally applied ,and subject to the will of the people of the states... not the impositions of the judiciary.

http://s16.postimage.org/4ightfjph/marriage_FB.jpg

I've posted before about this hypotethetical: if a person marries someone of the same sex in NY, then moves to TX can they get a divorce? No, since in TX's eyes they were never legally married in the first place. Can that person then marry someone else of the opposite sex in TX? Yes. So - that person is now married to two different people. In NY that person is considered a bigamist, while in TX not. Now if that person later visits NY (or any other state that recognizes same sex marriage) can the local authorities arrest him/her on charges of bigamy? I think so. What a mess.

This hypothetical is flawed. Yes they can get a divorce. They get it from the courts that have jurisdiction over it. So if NY holds the license then they are the courts responsible for the divorce. The reasoning is very simple and has been applied to other areas of law like the uccjea.

Its about jurisdiction not just a simple matter of crossing a state line.

The reason you said oy vey, is because you KNOW the Supreme Court can only rule ONE way. Certainly, as long as there are rights enjoyed by SOME, and NOT by others, it's a violation of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

excon


This is simply untrue. Many rights are conditional. The second amendment is a right to bear arms. Yet it has been stripped from those that lead a certain lifestyle. There are guidellines in the law as to where and when rights can occur. States having decided what the legal definition of marriage is (man and woman) is a States rights issue. Look at Chicago, New York and San Francisco. You see how they treat the second amendment. Those are but a few examples of how rights are determined by law.

Did anyone even note the fine print (http://gma.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/president-obama-affirms-his-support-for-same-sex-marriage.html) on Obama's flip-flo... "evolution?"


The president stressed that this is a personal position, and that he still supports the concept of states deciding the issue on their own.

So Obama's "evolution" puts him where Diċk Cheney was 8 years ago, or more exactly in Obama's case, playing both sides of the issue.

So Obama's "evolution" puts him where Diċk Cheney was 8 years ago, or more exactly in Obama's case, playing both sides of the issue.Hello again, Steve:

Yeah... It changes NOTHING from a legal standpoint.. But, it DOES matter that a sitting president came out in support of it. You know, the bully pulpit, and all that.

On the second issue, seems to me you'd LIKE that he doesn't want to FEDERALIZE marriage. No, huh?

excon

It's more than a "bully pulpit" thing, as the Presidenat and Congress do indeed have an impact on federal laws as they apply to gays, especially if married. For example consider income taxes - if Congress wanted they could extend joint filing opportunities to gays who have been legally married in those states that allow it - right now a legally married gay couple can not file as "married" on their taxes, due in part to the "Defense of Marriage" act passed under Clinton (now if you want to talk about a flip-flopper on this issue Bill Clinton is at the top of the list). And the federal government could mandate things like insurance coverage for domestic partners. So it does matter what the President and members of Congress think on the issue.

Hello again, Steve:

Yeah... It changes NOTHING from a legal standpoint.. But, it DOES matter that a sitting president came out in support of it. You know, the bully pulpit, and all that.

He didn't use any bully pulpit. He saves the bullying for those on his hit list (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304203604577397031654422966.html). You know, how he treats other people matters most to him.

his hit listHello again, Steve:

Yawn... Politics is a contact sport.

excon

What the hell has happened to the venerable Wall Street Journal? It's become a fluff rag.

What the hell has happened to the venerable Wall Street Journal? It's become a fluff rag.

I wouldn't call a story highlighting how the President of the United States is acting like Nixon when he should be representing ALL Americans instead of attacking private citizens, fluff.

THIS is a fluff rag:

http://media.hotair.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/FirstGayPresidentLarge.jpg

Andrew Sullivan ,the prime example of objective journalism

That cover is pandering as well, but WSJ writing has taken a horrible downhill turn, it's not at all the paper of Wall Street. It's become a throw away rag - Murdoch killed its reputation.

You must have them confused with the NY Times.

You must have them confused with the NY Times.
Oh sorry, is the NY Times owned by Murdoch's NewsCorp as well?

You seem to be under the impression that it's a "fluff rag" for the simple fact that Murdoch owns it.

No, for the reason(s) I had mentioned above. Not sure why you thought I had confused it with another newspaper since it's your original link. Anyway, carry on.

The news division of the WSJ is not that much different in content than the rest of the dinosaurs. The news division reporting of The Journal is as liberal as NPR or the Slimes.

I only read the Opinion Journal online. .

No, for the reason(s) I had mentioned above. Not sure why you thought I had confused it with another newspaper since it's your original link. Anyway, carry on.

When someone says "Murdoch killed its reputation" one can only come to the conclusion I did. The NYT comment was sarcasm, you never seem to get sarcasm.

When someone says "Murdoch killed its reputation" one can only come to the conclusion I did. Well that wasn't just my opinion, thye haven't won a Pulitzer since he took over and they been marred in controversy:
The Wall Street Journal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wall_Street_Journal#News_Corp).

The Wall Street Journal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wall_Street_Journal#2010:_McDonald.27s_health_care )

The Wall Street Journal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wall_Street_Journal#Political_views)

Oh, so lack of winning a Pulitzer means they're all fluff? By the way, Joseph Rago of the WSJ won last year's award for editorial writing (http://www.pulitzer.org/citation/2011-Editorial-Writing) and they've had 8 finalists (http://www.pulitzer.org/faceted_search/results/wall-street-journal) since then, including 2 more this year. So now they're recognizing fluff in the media?

Joe Rago ,Dan Henninger,James Taranto , Mary Anastasia O'Grady ,Bret Stephens ,Mary Kissel ,Kimberly Strassel are all fine writers and reporters . Better than most you see at the other dinosaurs.

Speaking of Kimberly Strassel, she also did a fine piece (http://online.wsj.com/article/potomac_watch.html) on Obama's hit list which I mentioned last week.

Have you noticed that all the articles are against Obama?

First of all, 2 does not equal all. Secondly, did you acknowledge the Pultzer recognition I linked? Thirdly, someone has to do some serious journalism as the vast majority of the media are Obama lapdogs (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/not-so-subtle-obama-rooting-in-the-media/2012/05/12/gIQAZMTpKU_blog.html?tid=pm_opinions_pop).

P.S. Jennifer missed the failure of the mainstream media to take Obama's cronyism (http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2012/05/14/hhs-sends-59-million-program-run-obama-buddy/) and scandals such as Fast and Furious seriously.

First of all, 2 does not equal all.I agree. I was referring to the preponderance it its articles day-to-day.
If you want to impress link me up to an award recognition article that is critical of conservatives/GOP. That should be a good challenge. :-)

I like how Jennifer writes an article with a fine use of "Duh". And her only links are to the WSJ.

Oh and about cronyism, show one administration that doesn't do that. It's an inherent fault in the political system, no one is immune.

Update: apparently Obama is NOT America's first gay president:
Our real first gay president - Salon.com (http://www.salon.com/2012/05/14/our_real_first_gay_president/singleton/)

[QUOTE]If you want to impress link me up to an award recognition article that is critical of conservatives/GOP. That should be a good challenge. :-)

I don't care to impress you, just prove you wrong which I did.


Oh and about cronyism, show one administration that doesn't do that. It's an inherent fault in the political system, no one is immune.

Well then, that makes it OK, huh?

Update: apparently Obama is NOT America's first gay president:
Our real first gay president - Salon.com (http://www.salon.com/2012/05/14/our_real_first_gay_president/singleton/)

Speculation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Buchanan#Personal_relationships).


Circumstances surrounding Buchanan's and King's close emotional ties have led to speculation that Buchanan was homosexual.[61] Buchanan's correspondence during this period with Thomas Kittera, however, mentions his romance with Mary K. Snyder. In Buchanan's letter to Mrs. Francis Preston Blair, he declines an invitation and expresses an expectation of marriage.[66] The only President to remain a bachelor, Buchanan turned to Harriet Lane, an orphaned niece, whom he had earlier adopted, to act as his official hostess.

Historians have had fun with that speculation about Buchanan for years without providing the proof necessary to confirm it. Suffice it to say he was one of the nations worse Presidents at the worse possible time for a weak President.

Lincoln has also been charged with having gay or bisexual tendencies. His relationship with his bodyguard Captain David Derickson has been a constant source of speculation.

Obama isn't the 1st mix race President if we listen to some historians also . That distinction goes to Warren G Harding.. Same deal. Historians have not pegged down the evidence that pins down this rumor as fact.

[QUOTE=NeedKarma;3117460]
Well then, that makes it ok, huh?Nope, it makes it universal in the US.