re: Respect for Marriage Act passes House (258 to 169) - now heads to Biden's desk

quote:

---

what is the point of the bill then? enough with your bullshite prevarications. just give me an exact definition of what happens if you don't "respect" gay marriage.

What is the point?

---

From the bill itself:

quote:

---

No person acting under color of State law may deny—

“(1) full faith and credit to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State pertaining to a marriage between 2 individuals, on the basis of the sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin of those individuals; or

“(2) a right or claim arising from such a marriage on the basis that such marriage would not be recognized under the law of that State on the basis of the sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin of those individuals.

---

quote:

---

For the purposes of any Federal law, rule, or regulation in which marital status is a factor, an individual shall be considered married if that individual’s marriage is between 2 individuals and is valid in the State where the marriage was entered into or, in the case of a marriage entered into outside any State, if the marriage is between 2 individuals and is valid in the place where entered into and the marriage could have been entered into in a State.

---

In short, the bill requires every state to recognize a legally valid marriage from another state. It also provides federal recognition for those marriages.

It does not force any state to perform or license a gay marriage- only to recognize one done in another state.

quote:

---

quote:

---

No person acting under color of State law may deny—

“(1) full faith and credit to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State pertaining to a marriage between 2 individuals, on the basis of the sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin of those individuals; or

“(2) a right or claim arising from such a marriage on the basis that such marriage would not be recognized under the law of that State on the basis of the sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin of those individuals.

---

In short, the bill requires every state to recognize a legally valid marriage from another state

---

I think it may be a BIT broader than that.

For instance, let's say that Bob's Jacuzzi Palace gives a discount to customers who are married. BJP is located in a state that "does not recognize" SSM. Kip and Jordan (a gay couple married in an adjacent state) want to buy a hot tub, and they want the discount. As I read subsection (1), BJP could not refuse to give the discount to Kip and Jordan by claiming that HIS state "does not recognize" their marriage.

Do you disagree?

quote:

---

States can and do have the right to not recognize gay marriage.

---

Negative.

quote:

---

I think it may be a BIT broader than that.

For instance, let's say that Bob's Jacuzzi Palace gives a discount to customers who are married. BJP is located in a state that "does not recognize" SSM. Kip and Jordan (a gay couple married in an adjacent state) want to buy a hot tub, and they want the discount. As I read subsection (1), BJP could not refuse to give the discount to Kip and Jordan by claiming that HIS state "does not recognize" their marriage.

Do you disagree?

---

That's an interesting hypo, but I took "under color of State law" to mean only officials associated with some level of government.

quote:

---

States can and do have the right to not recognize gay marriage.

quote:

---

Negative

---

---

I agree. My hypo would only come in to play if SCOTUS were to reverse Obergefell

quote:

---

so illegal for the states, but not the denizens? make it make sense. if the state can't protect itself from lawsuits, how are private individuals protected?

---

Protected from what exactly? You can personally feel or think however you want. If you are talking about private businesses, this doesn't address that so nothing changes from how it has been. I believe the only major cases we've seen have been based on state discrimination laws.

quote:

---

Protected from what exactly? You can personally feel or think however you want. If you are talking about private businesses, this doesn't address that so nothing changes from how it has been. I believe the only major cases we've seen have been based on state discrimination laws.

---

I just can't wrap my head around your nonsensical explanation. even the wording of the bill makes no sense. and yes the gay mafia is very litigious happy when it comes to private businesses. you really think the state will rule in favor of private citizens when lawsuits are brought forth? isn't ruling against gay marriage not "respecting" the code of law?

do you think California will comply with a respect for guns law? again make it make sense. you seem like a really bad lawyer.

quote:

---

That's an interesting hypo, but I took "under color of State law" to mean only officials associated with some level of government.

---

Yes, Color of Law pursuant to the Covil Rights Act of 1871 requires action by a state official. I am not aware of any subsequent statute that would define such term in a different manner

Nevertheless, private action can be under the color of state law when there is state intertwinement under a public function test, state compulsion test, or joint action test. See Wagner v metropolitan Nashville Airport Authority. Thus, while I’d agree with your analysis of this hypothetical, I don’t think dismissing the concerns by many should be so readily done. States grant rights and compel actions that extend to married individuals. Even if you believe full faith and credit should be extended, it seems reasonable to listen to such concerns

quote:

---

Force churches to accept same sex marriages or lose your exemption.

---

That’s a great idea actually