"Full Faith" clause
After a weekend discussion amongst some friends regarding this ridiculous and discriminatory 'ban on gay marriage' Constitutional amendment issue, I've had it in my mind all week that there must be exceptions to the Constitution's "full faith and credit" clause that's stirring up all these anti-gay people. I just couldn't think of one. Finally found a little ammunition against the 'full faith' argument (the argument that we need a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages, else 'liberal' states will be able to force gay marriages down the throats of other states):
"...it's by no means a given that other states would be forced to recognize Massachusetts marriages. For one thing, there is an established trapdoor to the full faith and credit clause: The courts have long held that no state should be forced to recognize a marriage sanctioned by another state if that marriage offends a deeply held public policy of the second state. States have been permitted to refuse to recognize marriages from states with different policies toward polygamy, miscegenation, or consanguinity for decades."
Thanks to Slate for this article, "Full Faith and Credulous", offering up their thoughts. If you've got more questions you might read their piece "FAQ: Gay Marriage" too.

Posted by ben at
04:30 PM
Comments (0)
Thank you Justice O'Connor
Justice O'Connor's retirement from the SCOTUS is a huge loss for this country. Here's a few interesting articles on Justice O'Connor.
MOVEON.org is sponsoring a petition to remind the Senate of what the American people think is required here. Please let them know just how important this decision is for our country. Below are my own comments to the senate:
Justice O'Connor made an incredible impact on America in the last 10 years. Her moderate and fair decisions have influenced the court system and this country in so many ways that it's impossible to imagine a court without her steady hand.
When President Bush was elected in 2000, my wife was very concerned that if he was able to, he would place a conservative judge on the court and threaten women's rights (namely roe v wade). At the time I felt like there was no way Bush would alienate the middle for the sake of the religious right. I'm no longer sure. His behavior over the last 5 years shows he really does not concern himself with opinions (AND FACTS) that go against his own world view. He acts on his own agenda.
I'm very concerned that President Bush may attempt to influence our country for years to come by forcing a right-wing zealot down our throats.
I urge the senate to very carefully review any nominee put forth. President Bush has a record of placing volatile nominees in all areas of his administration and our government.
What this country needs is a steady, moderate hand to replace Justice O'Conner, not a "Bush Legacy" justice.
Thank you for listening.

Posted by ben at
11:30 AM