Serious legal hurdles for gay divorce

I don't see a lot of gay divorces occurring. Not because they're gay, but because people against marriage will look at them and say "I TOLD YOU SO! LOLOLOL" So they will feel obligated to stay together.

 

Oh, FFS. Article IV Section 1 of The United States Constitution:

It's not like we're talking about an amendment; this is in the original constitution the framers created.

I still don't see why some states are saying, "nope, we don't recognise these marriages."

I'm also surprised someone has not challenged a state's view based on the above.

 

Since when has the constitution mattered in this country when guns are not involved?

 

The Defense of Marriage Act states that states do not have to recognize same-sex marriages from other states. IMHO that makes the DOMA unconstitutional, but it has not been challenged.

I undersand not challenging it. It would be a huge fight and the risk is just too high. I like the approach that Massachusetts. They are challenging other parts of the DOMA, basically the violation of equal protection.

 

You seem to be forgetting the all important First ammendment as well as the Fifth ammendment. Oh, and the ammendments on slavery and the right to representation in court.

 

Don't forget about the 19th amendment.

 

:/ ...also, can seem explain FFS. I'm not familiar with it, and every time I see it I sound it out in my head eff eff ess. Just doesn't good, I'm sure it stands for something that carries more weight than that. Sorry, it's just bothering me a lot.

 

Lol, for a moment, I was paining my brain to think of a gay marriage rights term that abbreviated to FFS.

FFS = For Fuck's Sake
Basically a slighty more crass version of "oh, please!!!"

About this article: I think it's a good thing, basically. Not because of gay people trapped being married to someone they don't like, but it's legal absurdities like these that tend to eventually crack laws that make no sense.

And there's some delicious irony in people banning gay marriage ending up as the ones that keep gay marriages together :badgrin:

 

No, I haven't forgotten about those amendments. However, those came later as needed. The states ratified those. I'm talking about the original articles of the constitution - that which started it all.

And as far as the DOM act telling states they don't have to recognise the unions, I liken it to a federal law saying Alabama doesn't have to recognise the fifteenth amendment and bar black from voting.

I'm not a constitutional scholar by any means, but it's so painfully obvious to me; I don't understand how it can't be to those sworn to protect the constitution.