I'm not sure that full faith and credit would apply to same-sex marriages. I doubt that it would for long, in any case, because if Texas didn't have a mini-DOMA, they would shortly thereafter. Ed O.
Article IV of the US Constitution <emp>Section 1.</emp> 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. <emp>Section 2.</emp> The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.
Incorrect. The right to call a domestic partnership using the term "marriage". They offer the same exact rights and protections as far as California is concerned.
Again, its the right to use the term MARRIAGE. Rights are not being taken away, other than semantics usage. as for that being recognized in Texas, that's a states issue in the time being.
There is no discrimination. Its merely the choice of wording of the term domestic partnership vs. marriage. Again, no real rights are being taken away here. They are exactly similar, but called different terms.
Nope. If you are using the previous use of "separate but equal", you will find that all rights are IDENTICAL, which was clearly not the case in the actual usage of the term in which blacks were not allowed to use white schools, fountains, etc. The only difference is just a different term for the union. Marriage vs. Domestic Partnership. That's it. All rights, as far as California is concerned, remain intact. The rights are not "separate, but equal", they are equal. Its just a different term used.
"different term used." That's clever. Rights are not "separate, but equal," they are equal. It's just separate.
Again, they have exactly the same rights. It is a different TERM used. That's it. All. Finito. The rights are not separate, that would imply that they would have to have access to a different set of facilities, which they do not. The ONLY thing that differs is the actual use of the term "marriage" vs. it being a domestic partnership. Its fucking petty for the supporters of this measure to cause a huge stink about this like they have. Going around and boycotting businesses that support this measure, calling people hate-filled....all due to semantics. For them to liken this to black rights in the 1950s and 1960s is disgraceful, classless and irrelevant.
GMJ, Obama believes in civil unions and he has defended their rights all his life. http://lesbianlife.about.com/od/lesbianactivism/p/BarackObama.htm Not saying you're calling Xericx/Obama bigoted though. :]
If gays were provided with the same rights and protections without calling it "marriage," why would your republican governor be in favor of it?
I'm only providing facts. Many others are providing faulty analogies, red herrings, straw mans and every other fallacy on the books. Appeals to emotion, blah blah blah. The list goes on and on. When you look at the facts objectively, you'll see that I'm quite correct.
So whilst the supporters of this measure furiously google and attempt to find some sort of loophole in my argument, I await patiently.
