Originally Posted by mulp

Well, just because you get your day in court, that doesn't mean you get justice.

Consider the case of the Tulia victims of persecution. 13 people spent four years in prison, and 46 others were arrested, imprisoned, and in many cases convicted of drug dealing, although their real crime was being black in Tulia, Texas. Their local government sought to get rid of them. But that is merely a recent example of government power applied to a group of people considered undesirable.

That of course, doesn't involve people leaving the US; they were merely passive victims, but the case of Tre Arrow, an environmental activist who, when it was clear he was being targeted for terrorism charges, left for Canada where he sought asylum. However, the US government sought his extradition, and he is now waiting trial on charges that are based only on testimony of someone seeking to profit from helping the Bush administration convict Tre as a terrorist. The charges are based on the testimony of one of three co-conspirators in a set of arsons claiming Tre was the mastermind; the other two co-conspirators claim Tre was not involved. The reward for the testimony is not being sentenced to life in prison, a sentence harsher than that given for those convicted of murder.

The US Constitution and Bill of Rights does nothing to protect those that the majority can be made to fear, like Hispanics - call them illegals, blacks and the poor - call them drug dealers, environmental activists - call them terrorists, war protesters - call them traitors and terrorists and deserters, doctors and family planning councilors - call them murders.

Originally Posted by smart makes a comeback

This is a simple and clearly defined 1st and 14th amendment issue...it is not brain surgery

Originally Posted by Teak

Since marriage is not even mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, its clealy a state issue. To be decided by each state as they deem appropriate.

Originally Posted by NAT

Article IV
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.
Section 2. The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.



According to this, every state MUST acknowledge any same-gendered amrriages made in Massachussettes.

Originally Posted by Teak

It COULD be interpreted that way. But it will be years before the SC agrees to hear any such case. And it still does not mention marriage specifically.

It is legal to own a .50 cal sniper rifle, in some states, but you can't in California. Which flies in the face of both Section 1 and Section 2, you quoted above.

If those section were taken, and enforced, literally every state would be required to have the same laws, and enforce them the same way. Thats is not now, now was it ever, the intent of any part of the U.S. Constitution.

Originally Posted by NAT

Certainly. The US Constitution is a contractual agreement, a contract of incorperation, between the several entities known as "States".

State autonomy has been steadily eroded since day one as well.

However, a marriage is also a legally binding contract, and that is what I quoted addresses, that a contract in one state must be acknowledged in other states.

Originally Posted by Teak

A marriage is a binding contract only between two people. Not between two states. Many contracts between two people are not enforceable in other locations (states), especially when the states laws are at odd with each other.