Al Gore: I'm for marriage equality

Nice to hear, even though its late

It certainly would have been a different 7 years had the disputed election been resolved in Congress (where it is supposed to be handled) than the Supreme Court, but I wouldn't go as far as saying that marriage equality would have fared better.

He has more liberty to embrace this position because he isn't president and has not run for office.  He could have had the same position in 2004 when states were amending constitutions left and right.  Did he make any statements when the Congress was considering an amendment to the US constitution?

He was VP during the birth of DOMA, after all.

I'm not saying Gore is a slouch.  I am saying that it is wishful thinking to assume that he would have taken a positive position in terms of equality back then simply because he does now.

I don't think Gore knows more about about equality and fairness than Obama or H. Clinton do...they just don't have the courage to say it.    

---

by: Patrick @ Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 10:31:17 AM CST

Run Gore Run!!!

There's still time!  Throw your hat in the ring, please!!!

*steps off ideological soapbox back into reality.

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

---

by: Daimeon @ Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 10:57:12 AM CST

Agreed.

Amen Daimeon!

---

by: zbriboy8 @ Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:04:40 AM CST

[ Parent ]

What we lost seven years ago

Sigh! If only...
I agree that if Al Gore had become president seven years ago it still might not have resulted in same sex marriage becoming law, but just to have someone in office who believed that way would have helped. It couldn't have been any worse than what we have.
Well, maybe it could be worse...we could get Huckabee
Shudder!

---

by: Fiona @ Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:08:01 AM CST

Had Gore become president

I am under no illusions. We still wouldn't have achieved full equality. However I don't think we would have had as many states with prohibitions against same sex marriage in their constitutions.

Never try to train a pig. It's a waste of time and it annoys the pig.

---

by: cali_techie @ Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 14:16:24 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Why not?

What would Gore have done as President that he didn't do as a former VP / politician and environmental activist?

It hasn't bothered him much until 2008 as far as I can tell.

---

by: Patrick @ Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 14:31:42 PM CST

[ Parent ]

It's not what he would have done

It's what he wouldn't have done.

Humans are a social and hierarchical species. We tend to follow the leader. Bush and the Republicans pushed for those anti-gay ballot measures and the majority followed his lead. They wouldn't have gotten nearly the traction under a Gore presidency.

Never try to train a pig. It's a waste of time and it annoys the pig.

---

by: cali_techie @ Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 14:44:09 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Truly a disappointment

If that is the case cali_techie, then just imagine what could have been accomplished had he (and other politicans from that party) had the courage and integrity to say anything positive on our behalf for the past 8 years.

Instead all they could say as a rebuttal to the threat of a US amendment was how unnecesary it was.  Nothing about how we don't deserve to be treated that way.  Nothing about how we are worthy of constitutional protections.  Nothing about how our families might be affected by encouraging bigotry instead of considering equality.

Not one goddamned word.  At least not until after the elections when we were blamed for their defeat...and only when it's not going to cause him any harm.

Maybe someday he will consider the effect of his inaction and apologize to us for waiting so long and allowing all the damage to occur.

Thanks, Al!  

---

by: Patrick @ Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 15:40:56 PM CST

[ Parent ]

The silence is troubling,

  I don't believe that many of the Democratic party have had or have the guts to speak on our behalf.  Hillary Clinton is just the perfect example.  I did a Google search to see if she has spoken anything positive for her constituents in N.Y.,  Suprise, came up empty.  

 171 co-sponsers on trans-inclusive ENDA looks great,  60 votes for hate crimes speaks loud from the Senate.  But all went for not as the Democrats failed to push it to Shrub's desk as they again caved on the war spending.

 It is great to hear Al say these nice things now as he has nothing to lose in regards to political career.  IMHO, if these spineless Democrats would actually stand up and address the real issues of the LGBT, they would lose nothing and gain alot.  

If I make sense? it was quite by accident.

---

by: HappyCat @ Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 17:32:53 PM CST

[ Parent ]

It's troubling, yes.

I was living in New York when Hillary first campaigned for Senator. She campaigned heavily to the LGBT community and made promises to fight for LGBT equality. Of course once she got elected she didn't really do much other than to vote in our favor 89% of the time. Not bad, but not delivering on her promise either. She introduced no LGBT friendly legislation and she didn't lift a finger to fight for us in any meaningful way.

Yet, we as a bloc still love her and Bill even though he threw us under the bus not once, but twice with DADT and DOMA and Hillary has supported DOMA.

I too used to be enamored with the Clintons, but no more. I think Bill did a good job as President, but I can't bring myself to vote for Hillary because she used us as an ATM and didn't really do anything for us in return.

I don't think Al was on board with us back during Bill's presidency and in 2000. Back then he was where John Edwards is today. He didn't hate us but his religious beliefs prevented him from supporting us. Now that he's back in the real world and away from Washington I think he's had an education and sees the damage caused by anti-gay bigotry and hatred, and this is his way of trying to fix it.

I welcome his words. Late is better than never.

Never try to train a pig. It's a waste of time and it annoys the pig.

---

by: cali_techie @ Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 18:46:40 PM CST

[ Parent ]

The silence is troubling

Unfortunately, there's a small matter of numbers here. Until the Democrats have veto-proof majorities in both houses of Congress, nothing we want will become law. The "Democratically-controlled Congress" isn't. Full Stop.

As for Gore, the more I hear about these kind of remarks from him, the more I'm convinced that he will never run for President again. After all, if he had any such plans, would he really say such things, knowing how the other side would use them against him?

"More than half of modern culture depends on what one shouldn't read." -- Oscar Wilde, The Importance of Being Earnest

---

by: Switchhttr69 @ Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 18:52:46 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Veto-proof,

  Agreed nothing is Veto-proof until there are enough votes.
From both sides when there is a slim majority for one or the other.

 The problem is that When American Corporations make anti-discrimination policies before the US government can write laws, that is very telling.

 Our Government is supposed to be the leader of the free world when it comes to freedom and liberty.  I say leader as that is what we where taught in the 70s and early 80s  when I was in school.  

 Leadership and Representation has gone by the wayside as Political Manuvering has taking control.  Joe Representative and Sara Senator are supposed to know the Constitution of the US.  They are supposed to up hold the damn thing.  

 A Representative Government was designed to protect all the people from injustice.  And not a Majority Rule (The Will of The People)  This fact has been ignored for way to long.  The rights of every American Citizen should be heard and protected.  

 Greed is the death of freedom, plain and simple.  Liberty and the pursuit of happiness has been defined by many in this country to relate to Dollar Signs.

 One has to wonder why it costs 4,000 times the amount of money it takes to WIN the job these days than the job pays.  

 I am willing to be a representative of the people in my district. Willing to put on paper what I stand for and what and where I stand on positions and issues.  A Contract so to say.  I break that agreement and I am gone. Just like a job.  

 I understand that I can't please all the people all the time, but I can state in two or three pages what I would vote for as a representative. My beliefs can be put in that few pages.  Have a question, ask me.  

 What I don't understand is we can't get an honest answer out of our officials.  They need to take a stand on an issue and be proud of it.  Take the heat if people disagree, explain why you feel the way you do.  Honest Debate is what changes minds and hearts.  Honest Debate when one person does waffle to try to gain the supprot of others wins.

 Ms HappyCat, Why do you believe Gays and Lesbians should be allowed to Marry?

 Because LOVE has no boundries, a couple committed to one another should be able to enjoy the same freedoms and oppertunitiies that life as an American Citizen has to offer.

 Ms. HappyCat, the bible says that homosexuallity is a sin and I don't want to support that sinfull act.

 Well Mr. Voter, That is the gift of freedom, you have the right to choose what you believe is right for yourself and family, But does that give you the right to impose your belief on others?  Let's say your neighbor wanted to make it illegal for you to eat Big Macs, Is it really up to your neighbor to tell you what to eat?

 It is that easy when you cut through the BullShit.  But we have let it all get to complicated trying to please everyone.

 One quality I see in the Shrub, is he is willing to stand for what he believes.  And stands firm on his positions, and the rest cave to his demands.  

 Look at SCHIP and tell me I am wrong.

If I make sense? it was quite by accident.

---

by: HappyCat @ Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 22:36:02 PM CST

[ Parent ]

where are the vocal straight supportes?

Hell, my friends won't even speak out on my/our behalf....I can't believe how conplacent and coluding they are with that which doesn't effect them.

---

by: Karen in Kalifornia @ Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 19:54:17 PM CST

[ Parent ]

You need better friends

Most of my straight friends are vocal supporters, and even those who aren't vocal supporters still support me in other ways. Then again I live in a pretty liberal area.

Never try to train a pig. It's a waste of time and it annoys the pig.

---

by: cali_techie @ Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 20:02:38 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I know of at least one...

...and his name is Ed Fallon. He tried for governor in my state, and lost the Dem's nomination to the fellow we have now (for my rant on that guy, see my diary). I happily signed his nomination petition to run for Congress.

You can check out a speech he gave in the state legislature 11 years ago:

http://www.geocities.com/WestH...

I believe he has a mySpace page as well.

"More than half of modern culture depends on what one shouldn't read." -- Oscar Wilde, The Importance of Being Earnest

---

by: Switchhttr69 @ Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 07:11:02 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Right on, HappyCat

And you are also right that the silence affects more than marriage equality (or the lack thereof).

ENDA is a prime example of what happens when politicians wait until they think it is safe to promote human rights.

It's great when they come out of the closet with their support like Gore did, but it would be even better to hear him explain why it took him so long and why he is being vocal now.

We deserve at least that much.

Bernie Sanders (Mayor of San Diego) could teach Gore a thing or two.  

 

---

by: Patrick @ Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 20:37:29 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Yes it is a disappointment

But that's politics. There was some damage, but it is not irreparable. It will just take longer. There would have been less under Gore, which while not the best scenario it's better than what we have now.

Frankly I'm surprised we haven't marched on Washington during this administration so some of it is our own fault.

Never try to train a pig. It's a waste of time and it annoys the pig.

---

by: cali_techie @ Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 18:27:25 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Marriage Equality and Al Gore

Many of us have been posting comments for months that Al Gore enter the reace for the White House.
It has been my contention that we can see a deadlocked convention and with LOUD VOICES the leadership will turn to a man who won the white house once.
Al Gore can do something WAY different this time.
He has the luxury of speaking his mind this time and not really caring weather he wins or loses for you can't lose an election as sadly as he once did.
This kind of freedom will lead to a candor in American politics that we may have NEVER seen.
And so the American people will have a CLEAR choice. Either we follow the disasterous Republicanism of the last 7 years or make a REAL change of direction.
If he wins we know America will have regained its soul.
If he loses, then we will contninue to get what we have been getting over the last 7 years...lies, thievery, and a trashing of our civil libertes.
G-d bless Al Gore.
Stuart & Robert Wyman-Cahall
Las Vegas, NV 89142  

---

by: Stuart & Robert Wyman-Cahall @ Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:13:43 AM CST

Hypocrisy Nation

I'm so tired of retired this that and the other public figures coming out in favor of marriage equality, getting rid of DADT, or whatever other sensible things. But we can never have anyone actually running for office or in a position of power advocate the same.

You know else would have changed about our country if Al Gore had been elected President in 2000? If he had won, Al Gore would not, today, be publicly in favor of marriage equality.

---

by: kathygnome @ Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:21:39 AM CST

Al Gore and Marriage Equality

The whole idea in having this "conversation" about marriage equality is to able to change hearts and minds one at a time if we must.
Al Gore is now FREE to voice his contoversial opinion, but he a leader who can succesfully put as human face on this issue.  He is VERY persuasive these days and his words carry a lot of weight.
As a candidate, I am very confident that he will carry our message to the American people like its NEVER been done before.
Yes, he might lose and we will continue our slide as a nation who used to lead the world in the area of civil rights.
It will mean that if he runs, we will have an awesome resposiblity TO WORK FOR HIM!!
Stuart & Robert Wyman-Cahall
Las Vegas, NV 89142

---

by: Stuart & Robert Wyman-Cahall @ Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:33:51 AM CST

What a Bigot!

Shouldn't we be promoting the kind of faithfulness and loyalty to one partner regardless of sexual orientation?

So, it finally comes out...  Al Gore's blatant polyamorphobia.  And I didn't hear him say anything about my right to marry my dog.  And he calls himself a liberal.

=P

---

by: Mireille @ Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:48:40 AM CST

Al Gore and Marriage Equality

umm..I'm trying to understand your post.
Stuart

---

by: Stuart & Robert Wyman-Cahall @ Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 12:01:37 PM CST

[ Parent ]

That comment

= trollery

---

by: KC @ Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 12:32:59 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Looks like snark to me

Not particularly good quality snark though. On a scale of 1-10, I'd have to say it's a 4.5.

Never try to train a pig. It's a waste of time and it annoys the pig.

---

by: cali_techie @ Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 12:44:05 PM CST

[ Parent ]

It was a joke...

I wasn't serious...  jesus h people, grow a funny bone

---

by: Mireille @ Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 03:42:01 AM CST

[ Parent ]

"jesus h people, grow a funny bone"

Well, maybe some of the folks above where suggesting the same to you, or that you let it grow a little more, or whatever one does with funny bones.

Me?  I took my cue from your =P emoticon, so I figured you were just jiving or shucking or something.

---

by: Pollyanna @ Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 14:20:31 PM CST

[ Parent ]

He needs a tele-prom-ter

He's in his office at Current (I interviewed for a job at Current in that office once), they should have a way for him not to have to look down at notes.

It's nice to see Gore stepping forward on the issue. He's always been a friend to the LGBT community; more so than any of the three front-runners in the Democratic primary.

There are some who will say "too little, too late" but I say "Thanks Al! It's good to have you."

Never try to train a pig. It's a waste of time and it annoys the pig.

---

by: cali_techie @ Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 12:42:45 PM CST

exactly

At  least he said something in support of equality.
Even my supportive straight friends look at me funny when I say I"m not supporting any of the top Demo candidates bec none of them support my equal rights...they all look at me like, huh?   None of them know or remember about all the right's limiting discriminating anti gay state amendments no matter how many times I tell them...One of them even said to me, Gee you know alot...it doesn't effect him so why should he care.
Thanks Mr Gore.

---

by: Karen in Kalifornia @ Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 13:58:24 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Sheesh...

AFAIK, Kucinich is still running, and AFAIK, he's still touting the exact sentiment he always has--that we are owed the same as skraights. Period. Why don't we just back him instead of someone who's already been there, not done that--let alone someone we have to beg to run? I mean, I love Gore, too, but we already have a candidate (albeit ignored) that likes us and has our best interests at heart.  

Curses! My million dollar ideas foiled again: "God Bless Your Brand!" http://www.christvertising.com/

---

by: TJ McFisty @ Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 13:08:17 PM CST

I am.

Voting for him in the upcoming primary.  

---

by: Karen in Kalifornia @ Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 13:55:05 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I will Vote for Dennis as well,

  My guess would be if Dennis recieves enough votes in the primaries, just maybe who actually wins the Democratic Nom will see the percentage that is actually voting for Dennis.

If the Democraric winner after the primaries doesn't represent us I will have to vote for a third party.

 HRC has shown me what silence means to trans people. I will know what a Democratic Candidate's silence will mean also.

If I make sense? it was quite by accident.

---

by: HappyCat @ Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 17:42:06 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Change the Candiates stand--vote Kucinich.

I am supporting Kucinich. No leading candidate would dare treat us the way they have if we show we are serious about only supporting those aho support us. A vote for Kucinich is not wasted. It is a vote to change the nature of the political dialogue between candidates and our community.

I tell you Chica that no greater abomination exists than women denying their spirit of sisterhood and instead becoming the oppressor. -Rebeca, Universidad Complutense de Madrid

---

by: MauraHennessey @ Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 20:10:24 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Kucinich is my man

It doesn't hurt having Gore (who is seen as less of a kook) saying the same thing Dennis is saying.

Never try to train a pig. It's a waste of time and it annoys the pig.

---

by: cali_techie @ Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 14:18:12 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I'm going to write in your name for president, TJ.

That way, I won't be wasting my vote.  After all, we know where you stand on these LBGT issues.  You're our kind of person.  What more could we want in a candidate, after all?  

---

by: Pollyanna @ Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 14:27:46 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Gosh, I got so excited about McFisty for Prez that...

I put the B before the G (LBGT) in my alphabet list.  A Freudian slip?   Haven't looked at my membership card in too many years?  Or just bad keyboard skills?  Who can say.

I gotta check in with my precinct captain about how to score a paper ballot.  And I was so looking forward to those touch screens.

---

by: Pollyanna @ Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 14:39:23 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Now that Dennis Kucinich has dropped out of the race...

y'all vote McFisty for Prez!  Don't sully yourself with a vote for someone who might actually win.

---

by: Pollyanna @ Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 16:20:26 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Psh

You people are trapped in a  world of collectivism, Al gore doesnt give a shit about your right to marry, he doesnt give a shit about your rights. He is feeding you a line of crap to garner your vote for the NEOCRATS. Wake up people. I mean you already know the NeoCons dont. The Democrats and Republicans are virtually two different heads on the same damn coin.

---

by: Aquarian Prince @ Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 16:57:35 PM CST

whatever

shut up and go somewhere else - when it comes to politics we know the democrats are on our side and the republicants are the fearmonger whores

---

by: kcflood @ Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 18:21:39 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Oh yeah...

These people will say anything to get elected, time and time again, and know that I have ill favor of all of them. Huckabee, Romney, Guiliani, McCain, Obama, Edwards, and clinton..are clinton and obama really the type of people you want to run our country? fighting each other non stop, listen to what the hell these people are saying..

---

by: Aquarian Prince @ Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 19:17:51 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I really think

That you  are not giving Ron paul a fair chance, because you think he is a homophobe and a racist? because of the articles James Kirchick wrote about newsletters that ron paul supposebly wrote. There is no proof that Ron paul wrote those letters. Anybody can write something and put someone elses name on it claiming that it was written by them. Where is the clips of Ron Paul saying these things?  there is proof that he repudiated these articles more then twice and the he takes moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what was being written out under his name. And why the hell are you people voting on the candidate most likely to win? What about voting for the candidate that shows the most conscience and reason. I have given up on the gay rights movement.. it's a battle of collectivism. Gay versus Straight. Same as black versus white. The fight being waged now is deeper then any of you will probably ever understand. The fight for our constitution.

---

by: Aquarian Prince @ Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 19:35:39 PM CST

Christ on a crutch, man

Why are you effing up a perfectly nice thread about Our Pal, Al, with all this Ron Paul stuff? (but props for not cutting and posting the exact same comment into different threads as you did yesterday)  Try to be a little subtle - find a more appropriate thread and slip it in there.  Or write a diary, pages and pages to your heart's content about your candidate.  See if anyone cares.  Especially any self-respecting gay person.

You've irritated me so much that I'm going down the block right now to where someone has a Ron Paul for President sign in their front yard, and I'm going to kick that sucker over.  

---

by: Pollyanna @ Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 19:57:02 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Well

Because I've read about Al Gore, and I disagree with him, and I think he is only saying this to gain votes from a divided subculture of americans. And the last time I checked my statement was about Al Gore so It was appropriate for this thread. Also, if the blogs included Ron Paul I would post my responses within them, but Ron Paul is hardly ever mentioned unless he is being used as a prop to criticize the other republican candidates.  In terms of a "self-respecting" gay person, what do you mean? I could make numerous presumptions to that statement, but it would be fair to allow you to elaborate on that.  Oh and be careful kicking down those signs Pollyanna, ron paul supporters are fierce, you don't want to be in the same predicament Sean Hannity was in back in New Hampshire.

---

by: Aquarian Prince @ Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 23:57:51 PM CST

[ Parent ]

And I've read about Ron Paul

He's not our friend.

Never try to train a pig. It's a waste of time and it annoys the pig.

---

by: cali_techie @ Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 01:46:41 AM CST

[ Parent ]

What do you mean he is not our friend?

Where do you get that idea from?

---

by: Aquarian Prince @ Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 02:39:59 AM CST

[ Parent ]

You can't be asking that question

You ARE a Ron Paul troll...

I guess you don't know my friends Google and Wikipedia:

Political Positions of Ron Paul

Here's the relevant part because you're probably not going to go look so you can stay in denial:

In 2004, he spoke in support of the Defense of Marriage Act (passed in 1996) which limited the U.S. Constitution's Full Faith and Credit Clause by allowing states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states if they so choose. He co-sponsored the Marriage Protection Act, which would have barred judges from hearing cases pertaining to the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act.

Ron Paul has been a critic of the Supreme Court's decision on the Lawrence v. Texas case in which sodomy laws were ruled unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment. In an essay posted to the Lew Rockwell website he wrote

   "Consider the Lawrence case decided by the Supreme Court in June. The Court determined that Texas had no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because gay sodomy is somehow protected under the 14th amendment "right to privacy." Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be, there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution. There are, however, states' rights - rights plainly affirmed in the Ninth and Tenth amendments. Under those amendments, the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards."

He takes a libertarian bent in many ways, but the fact he backed an unconstitutional law to prohibit the courts from ruling on another unconstitutional law in reference to gay marriage and the fact he thinks it's OK for states to invade people's bedrooms and regulate private behavior between consenting adults on what is ostensibly their own private property tells me he's not our friend.

Never try to train a pig. It's a waste of time and it annoys the pig.

---

by: cali_techie @ Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 03:00:28 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Oh, and he also wants to...

leave marriage up to the church, that it was never a government institution and that it should be left up to the church. "Imagine", because that will be the only SSM you would ever see. Without Federal Civil Rights protections, our nation will roll back a century in conforming to the Constitution of the United States.

I'd rather be a lion for one day, than a sheep for my entire life.

---

by: PhyllisMs @ Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 04:38:34 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Each individual state

according to the United States  constitution is itself sovereign, and has the right to establish it's own laws within their state constitution. Ron Paul supported the DOMA  because it gave the states the ability to decide on their own whether they wanted to allow gay marriage or not. As for the Marriage Protection Act, he said: "Mr. Speaker, as an original cosponsor of the Marriage Protection Act (HR 3313), I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bill. HR 3313 ensures federal courts will not undermine any state laws regulating marriage by forcing a state to recognize same-sex marriage licenses issued in another state. The Marriage Protection Act thus ensures that the authority to regulate marriage remains with individual states and communities, as the drafters of the Constitution intended." He is talking about the FEDERAL Courts people, not the state courts. The federal government is interveneing with a state's sovereignty. Now no where does it say that state courts are not allowed to intervene in the matter. And the argument for Lawrence v. Texas is as follows, The federal courts are making rulings contrary to the other state's constitution. Now the full faith and credit clause is what is creating the controversy because it says that the acts of one state must be recognized by another. That then in return is interfereing with the state's sovereignty under amendment IX. I understand the argument..I am not against same-sex marriage but this is the battle here, not same-sex marriage itself, but The Full Faith and Credit Clause and a state's sovereignty.

---

by: Aquarian Prince @ Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 05:45:42 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Which is exactly why

He's not our friend. Part of the role of the federal government is to protect people who may have no recourse with the states.

There once was a time when most states had laws on the books prohibiting mixed-race couples from marrying. If Paul had his way we'd still have those laws on the books.

States are not countries. They are not fully independent sovereign nations. That is the price they pay for being part of the United States. Otherwise why even bother having a federal government?

No one is buying what you're selling around here.

Never try to train a pig. It's a waste of time and it annoys the pig.

---

by: cali_techie @ Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 11:31:42 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Ok

Amendment 11 - Judicial Powers construed.

This Amendment was designed to prevent a citizen of one state from bringing suit against another state in federal court, modifying Article 3, Section 2, Clause 1. Over time, it has also been construed to prevent citizens of a state from bringing their own state to federal court. 11th Amendment law is in a resurgence in the 1990's as several Supreme Court cases make their mark.

Article 3 Section 2 Clause 1 states:

(The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.) (This section in parentheses is modified by the 11th Amendment.)

No, he is following the constitution,  The 11th amendment modified this section, which is being contested in state supreme courts. The 11th Amendment is prohibiting the Federal Judicial Branch from taking on cases brought forth by citizens from the states.

---

by: Aquarian Prince @ Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 14:18:55 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Whatever

That's your interpretation of the clause. It's designed so that state governments cannot be sued for tort. That has always been the interpretation of that law.

You're clearly a Ron Paul troll. Why don't you go peddle it where someone might actually buy into what you're saying?

Never try to train a pig. It's a waste of time and it annoys the pig.

---

by: cali_techie @ Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 00:47:11 AM CST

[ Parent ]

My interpretation?

I am citing this information from online sources. http://www.usconstitution.net/...  

---

by: Aquarian Prince @ Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 01:04:44 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Yeah, your interpretation is incorrect

I didn't take a close look and my initial response to you about tort was incorrect. Since now you've insisted I take a closer look I'll give it the attention it deserves.

Amendment 11 - Judicial Limits. Ratified 2/7/1795.

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.

It basically means someone who legally lives in one state or outside of the country cannot sue the government of another state. In other words, because my legal residence is in California, I cannot sue the state of Texas. Someone from France cannot sue the state of New Mexico. There is nothing that keeps me from suing the state of California though.

You copied it from that website but you didn't bother to read the history, which says it originated because of the US Supreme court decision from Chisholm v Georgia (2 U.S. 419), 1793. Basically Alexander Chisholm, a resident of South Carolina sued the state of Georgia and prevailed. It was appealed to the US Supreme Court and Chisholm prevailed again. It was never intended to keep people from suing their own state of residence.

Not only that but states can consent to be sued (really!) or Congress pursuant to a valid exercise of Fourteenth Amendment remedial powers, abrogates the states' immunity from suit. See, e.g., Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U.S. 445 (1976).

Your interpretation and Ron Paul's of the 11th Amendment is incorrect and ignores history.

Never try to train a pig. It's a waste of time and it annoys the pig.

---

by: cali_techie @ Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 01:31:08 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Also

The 11th Amendment puts into question the the credibility set forth by the full faith and credit clause to Same sex marriage, because the are contradicting one another.

---

by: Aquarian Prince @ Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 14:28:23 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Fitzpatrick v. Blitzer

Check it out.

Never try to train a pig. It's a waste of time and it annoys the pig.

---

by: cali_techie @ Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 01:33:00 AM CST

[ Parent ]

If left to Ron Paul...

We will forever be without with his conclusion that the states can do what they want. We already see what happens when federal civil rights protections are left up to the states, many will have none.

I'd rather be a lion for one day, than a sheep for my entire life.

---

by: PhyllisMs @ Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 04:27:12 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Also

He voted against the FMA because that was forcing all the states to concur with the Federal government.

---

by: Aquarian Prince @ Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 05:56:41 AM CST

[ Parent ]

The same as the Constitution itself

Using that logic he should be completely against the US Constitution. The logical dissonance is astounding.

Never try to train a pig. It's a waste of time and it annoys the pig.

---

by: cali_techie @ Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 01:34:28 AM CST

[ Parent ]