american conervative news opinion politics the land of the fre

 

 

If you spent half as much time reading the Constitution as you claim to you would know that a Constitutional Amendment to prevent gays from marrying is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  Read section IV you moron.  It says that each state must respect the laws of the other states and be bound by the same laws.

Lubby

Lubby,

Just to show you my knowledge of what the Constitution actually says I will type it for you here without evening having to go cut and paste it (you'll just have to take my word for it I suppose since you can't see me typing it).  Article IV (not "section IV") says "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."

Article IV says that a state must recognize (give full faith and credit) to the acts, laws and other proceedings of every other state.  It also goes on to say that Congress has the right to dictate how such actions must be recognized and to what effect.  What Article IV does not say is that a state must offer the same benefits, entitlements, etc to the residents of another state that now resides there.  It simply says that a state must recognize the laws of another state.

If Massachussets says that homosexuals can marry within their borders and then a homosexual couple moves to Nevada where homosexual marriages are not recognized Nevada is ONLY required to recognize that in Massachussets they are legally married.  They are not required to give them the benefits of marriage in Nevada not the same benefits that they might recieve in Massachussetts.  There is a big difference between what Article IV says and what you are implying it says.

You are implying that the Article says that because a homosexual couple in Massachussets is given certain rights that upon their move to Nevada they must have the same rights.

If you read Section 2 it says only that "
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States."  (i.e. those in the the Constitution).  It does not say "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the each State."

That makes all the difference.

However the argument is moot because way back in section 1 it clearly says that "
Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof" which gives Congress the power to dictate how such interstate Acts, etc must be respected.

So before you come here claiming that I don't know what I am talking about please read the document you cite as your source.  You can not take a single line, rewrite it and then claim that it is proof that I am wrong and that you are right.  In fact we don't even need a Constitutional amendment, Congress has the power to legislate it.

Sincerely,
Jeffrey J. Jackson
The Land of the Free

www.thelandofthefree.net






Land of the Free Site Map


Godless
Ann Coulter

 


Constitution In Exile
A. Napolitano
 


The Professors
David Horowitz


Unhinged
Michelle Malkin

Amazon.com
 

 





Visit our OLD Blog At
The Vast Right Wing Attack Blog

News Archive


Reader Mail

 

Support the Troops!!

Recent Articles

Feed Powered By Feed Digest

American Conservative Daily

WorldNetDaily Headlines

Washington Times Headlines
Political News
World News
FOX News Headlines

Want to be notified when this site is updated?
Send an Email with the subject line "Update ME!"

T-shirts & Gifts

24/7 Christian T-shirts
Patriotic American Eagle T-shirts
100% American Woman T-shirts
Real Dixie Chick T-shirts

Right Wing  RightPages

ConservaFind - Conservative Search Engine