|
Most states in the U.S. have DOMA (Defense Of Marriage Act) laws, designed so that states are not forced to recognize same-sex marriages performed in states where they may be legal. Of course, the constitutionality of these DOMA laws has yet to be tested, and I doubt they could stand up to such a test. The Repukes obviously think this, too, or they would not be attempting to pass a Marriage Amendment to the Constitution, outlawing all marriage except between one man and one woman,even going so far as to FORBID individual states from recognizing same-sex marriages.
So much for the "state's-rights Repukes, eh? They will scream abiut states' rights and local control, unless it impedes their agenda, in which caase, they will trample all over states' rights. such was well-demonstrated in the whole "Faith-Based Initiative" fiasco, whereby it would allow faith-ased organizations to recieve Federal dollars to run charities, and not be required to adhere to local non-discrimination laws.
I assume, since the states that have DOMA laws do not require them to recognize as legal marriages performed in other states (a violation of the 14th Amendment, IMHO) I assume that would also extend to marriages performed in other countries.
Besides, since when has international cooperation and respect been a part of this Administration?
I suspect any legal same-sex marriage performed in Canada would not be upheld in the U.S. under the DOMA laws of the state in question. Unless the Repukes manage to get their Amendment passed. And don't laugh, I think it is possible they could, with the current attitude in the U.S.
But a marriage performed in Canada, not recognized then in the U.S. under DOMA laws may well set the stage for a supreme Court ruling. But, as packed with conservo-creeps as the court is now, I'm not sure we want a Supreme Court ruling on the matter.
Incidentally, it takes 2/3 of both chambers of Congress to get an Amendment to the Constitution to the next stage, which is ratification by states. It then needs 2/3 of states to ratify it for it to become a part of our Constitution.
With the current Repuke control of both houses, I can see enogh linguine -spined moderate Dems scared of losing votes for failing to support such an Amendment, and it thus getting to the level of states' ratification. and I can see the pressures brought to bear on states governments by conservo-creeps to ratify...and since many states have been gerrymandered to conservo-creep control, it is not impossible for 38 states to ratify such an Amendment, given that over 30 states have the aforementioned DOMA laws.
My personal response to the proponents of various "Defense of Marriage" proposals has always been to turn it back on them, and ask how hetero marriages are in any way harmed by allowing same-sex couples to marry? And if any CHURCH doesn't want to recognize such a marriage, they would not have to. I suspect any church that would not recognize such a marriage is not a church any self-resecting GLBT person would want anything to do with, anyway, so who gives a crap if the Southern Baptist Church doesn't recognize my same-sex marriage...especially if my government does, and my own Unitarian Universalist Church does? Who cares what the Baptists think, anyway, right?
The second point I like to make is that I think the ability for people to divorce and remarry, time and again, often at the drop of a hat, does far more to harm the sanctity of marriage than does allowing a same-sex couple to marry even ONCE. They usually have no intelligent, or even coherent response to these arguments.
Sorry I ran on so long, but it is a subject on which I have many thoughts...given that I am a transsexual, this is a serious issue for me. After all, in my own state of Texas, for example, as current law would have it...in Austin I can marry a man. In San Antonio I can marry a woman. Because of the Littleton v Prange case in the 4th Circuit of Texas, covering the San Antonio area, ruled that Littleton was, for purposes of marriage, a man...rather than the woman she had become. whereas austin currently does not have a ruling, and so I would assume in Austin a post-op TS, like myself, could then marry a man, but not a woman.
And in New Jersey, for purposes of marriage, a post-op male-to-female TS is a woman, and the case law pertaining to it goes back to 1976, JT v MT.
So, there are lots of loopholes here in what exactly...or how exactly does one determine who is a man, and who is a woman?
There are documented cases of intersex people, whose chromosomes fit neither the normal "male" nor "female" setups of 46XY and 46XX respectively. I refer to Kleifelter Syndrome patients and Turner Syndrome patients here.
Additionally, there are documented cases of women who bear the male chromosome pattern, which is why the International Olympic committee no longer uses chromosome testing for qualification to compete as a woman. So chromosome branding of gender is not viable...what do you do with legally married couples who suddenly discover chromosomal anomalies that they never knew they gad, like Billie Jean King?
Does every marriage license issued in the U.S. then require an expensive chromosome test? And what of hermaphrodites, or intersexed people? Are they allowed to marry both, or neither?
So we go to external genitalia. Does that become the benchmark by which we decide who is what gender? If that were the case, Littleton v Prange would have had a different outcome. And a post-op TS could then marry someone of the opposite of their new gender only. Again, where does that leave hermaphrodites who elect to not have corrective surgery done? to say nothing of non-op TS's who merely live as members of the opposite birth gender, and never get or desire surgery, but may take hormones? what to do with the person who presents such, possessing a penis and breasts? Is that a man or a woman?
So we go to birth genitalia. Again, what to do with hermaphrodites? Are they allowed to marry both or neither?
See?
There's no real good way to define who is what sex, and, until they can do this, all these anti-same-sex marriage laws are really up for serious question....
|