Debate predictions?

[lookout123]

yeah, cheney knew he was going to get hit with that one because everyone knows bush and cheney are at odds on the issue.
i would have thought he would have prepared himself better.

[lookout123]

honest question - i thought marriage in one state had to be recognized in the other 49? i forget the name of the law, but i know it deals with reciprocity in most areas.

[lookout123]

edwards was surprised that cheney hit him with the numbers from his medicare tax loophole.

[elSicomoro]

It's official...this is a snoozefest.

[lookout123]

there was a little bit there where they got a little uppity with each other, but they finished off with a resounding snore.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by lookout123

honest question - i thought marriage in one state had to be recognized in the other 49? i forget the name of the law, but i know it deals with reciprocity in most areas.

"Full Faith and Credit Clause." IIRC, that is only valid if the marriage is legal in the state. IE, first cousins and interracial couples have at various times and in various states been recognized as married or not.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by sycamore

It's official...this is a snoozefest.

Huh. I thought this was a much more substantive and interesting debate than the last one.

[lookout123]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

"Full Faith and Credit Clause." IIRC, that is only valid if the marriage is legal in the state. IE, first cousins and interracial couples have at various times and in various states been recognized as married or not.

thanks hm, that is the one i was thinking of. then, hypothetically, if minnesota legalized gay marriage, wouldn't new mexico be required to honor them as a married couple? or am i misunderstanding the law?

Originally Posted by lookout123

thanks hm, that is the one i was thinking of. then, hypothetically, if minnesota legalized gay marriage, wouldn't new mexico be required to honor them as a married couple? or am i misunderstanding the law?

In 1996, President Clinton signed into law the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which, for federal purposes, defined marraige as "only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife" (1 U.S.C. § 7). DOMA further provided that "No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship" (28 U.S.C. § 1738C). (See Law about... Conflicts of laws, Constitutional law)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/marriage.html

I'd call it a draw, myself. Cheney came across as the experienced insider. Edwards seemed a bit brash by comparison. I liked the way Cheney managed to sneak in his typical fear mongering with veiled refereces to terrorists in one of our cities with a nuclear bomb, and then later in the debate mentioning terrorists in one of our cities with biological weapons.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by lookout123

thanks hm, that is the one i was thinking of. then, hypothetically, if minnesota legalized gay marriage, wouldn't new mexico be required to honor them as a married couple? or am i misunderstanding the law?

No, but Massachusetts would. As I said in an embarasssingly complicated and unclear sentence, when interracial marriage was slowly being recognized, there was a period when some states recognized it, and others didn't. Those marriages weren't recognized in states in which it was illegal. The same was true for first cousins - and may still be, I'm not sure.

[Happy Monkey]

Cheney fact check. Anyone find one of these for Edwards yet?

[Radar]

Originally Posted by lookout123

honest question - i thought marriage in one state had to be recognized in the other 49? i forget the name of the law, but i know it deals with reciprocity in most areas.

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 by 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.

A person charged in any state with treason, felony, or other crime, who shall flee from justice, and be found in another state, shall on demand of the executive authority of the state from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the state having jurisdiction of the crime.

No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.

Section 3. New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.

The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state.

Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.

Originally Posted by lookout123

thanks hm, that is the one i was thinking of. then, hypothetically, if minnesota legalized gay marriage, wouldn't new mexico be required to honor them as a married couple? or am i misunderstanding the law?

Actually the states WOULD be required to legally recognize the marriages of the other states. The fact that they violated this part of the Constitution does not make it any less valid. Nor does the "protection of marriage act" voted on in 1996 because that is an illegal congressional act. No laws that contradict the U.S. Constitution are legal including acts of Congress. This has not been challenged yet, and if it were, it would fail for sure.

So if one state makes it legal, all states in the union must recognize it.

There's one issue I've never seen anyone bring up with gay marriages. I mean we all know marrying anyone you choose (regardless of gender) is a right for all Americans including gay ones. I've never seen anyone mention the fact that a straight man can marry a woman in another country and sponsor her as his spouse to enter the U.S. but gay people can't do that. There are a host of other ways homosexuals have their rights violated including social security, etc.