When Gary told me he had found Jesus, I thought, Ya-hoo! We're rich! But it turned out to be something different.
Grandpa Dan Zachary
In poll after poll, the American people reject the marriages by a 2-1 margin.
CBS News Poll. Feb. 24-27, 2004. Nationwide.
"Would you favor or oppose a law that would allow homosexual couples to marry, giving them the same legal rights as other married couples?" N=1,545 adults, MoE ± 3
2/04 - 30% favor, 62% oppose, 8% don't know
University of Pennsylvania National Annenberg Election Survey. Feb. 14-23, 2004
"Would you favor or oppose a law in your state that would allow gays and lesbians to marry a partner of the same sex?" Favor/Oppose rotated
30% favor, 64% oppose
ABC News/Washington Post Poll. Feb. 18-22, 2004
"Do you think it should be legal or illegal for homosexual couples to get married?"
39% legal, 55% illegal 6% no opinion
CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll. Feb. 16-17, 2004
"Do you think marriages between homosexuals should or should not be recognized by the law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages?"
2/16-17/04 - 32% Should Be Valid 64% Should Not Be
Time/CNN Poll
"Do you think marriages between homosexual men or between homosexual women should be recognized as legal by the law, or not?"
30% yes, 62% no, 8% not sure
National Public Radio Poll
"Thinking now about gay marriage, that is, allowing a couple who are gay or lesbian to marry one another legally, do you favor or oppose gay marriage?"
Why? Because some activitist judges say Breyer, Ginsburg and Stevens will do everything to thwart the will of the people. They will intentionally mischaracterize the equal protection reference in the 14th amendment in an attempt to impose their morality on the nation.
the text of the 14th amendment to the us constitution:
AMENDMENT XIV Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.
Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,* and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Changed by section 1 of the 26th amendment.
now, let me point out article 6 of the same:
Article. VI.
All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
let me re-point out that second paragraph, just for good measure:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
and again just so that it sinks in:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
notice that there is no reference whatsoever in that paragraph that says anything about any other supporting documents in there. just the constitution, and the laws of the united states. so your bullshit about mischaracterisation of the 14th amendment is just that, bullshit. if there were some other intent, the writers should have written it in, otherwise it isn't a part of the supreme law of the land, and the amendment must be interpreted *exactly* as is written.
Unfortunately there are damn to many people like you. When laws are made and the Constitution is amended it is done for a reason. That is to accomplish something. That must be taken into account or there is no law. The 14th amendment was adopted soley for the reason of protecting black Americans. To state that it applies to same sex marriage is ludicrous. But even if it did there is no equal protection problem. They are treated just like everyone else.
The 14th amendment was adopted soley for the reason of protecting black Americans.
uh....
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;nor shall any State deprive any personof life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdictionthe equal protection of the laws. Â Â
nope...nothing about black Americans...citizens, yes...any person, sure...but blacks specifically? nope.
you'd think if it was to protect blacks that it might actually mention it?
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
If you don't interpret the laws in with the framework of what was intended how are you going to accomplish the goal? Obvious it is the law but what does it mean. If it was a simple as you seem to think, and of course a simpleton would, why the hell, do we need attorneys. God you are big fricking damn idiot. Like I said before you, and people like you, are part of the damn problem.
the congressional record is not law, jethro. nor are any of the other supporting documents. now go back and read article 6, and don't come back until its sunk in to your thick skull.
so, you don't give a damn what was trying to be accomplished by legislation or Cosntitutional amendment? Don't you think it is important to know that when reading the law? Because if you don't do that issues that were supposed to be addressed might well be ignored and issues that were never considered will become the law. That is not democratic, now is it?
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Yeah, So what? What the f*** does the 14th amendment mean? Tell me bright boy? It means that people should be treated the same under the law. It was passed because blacks weren't being treated the same. It has no application to gay marriage becasue the law of the various states treats all people the same. Only one man can marry one woman. That applies the same to everyone. No one can marry someone of the same sex. That applies to everyone. So where is equal protection problem? It doesn't exist. But the likes of Breyer, Ginsburg and Stevens will say it does. Get it now?
ya know, you still didn't answer my question before, at least not satisfactorily. if 3/4 of the states have laws on the books banning gay marriage, why do we need a constitutional amendment banning them on a federal level?
Yes,it waould have ratified becuase the southern states were not part of the process. If I remeber correctly a few were required to ratify to be readmitted. Those states readmited to the union after it passed had no say.
ya know, you still didn't answer my question before, at least not satisfactorily. if 3/4 of the states have laws on the books banning gay marriage, why do we need a constitutional amendment banning them on a federal level?
because of the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution.
let's say, for instance that i'm a licensed plumber in Minnesota. does that give me the right to go over to Wisconsin and do plumbing work?
No. That person would have to meet the requirements of Wisconsin. But he cannot be banned from the occupation simply because he lives in another state. That is because regulation of conditions of employment are not considered a limitation of fundamental right. Wisconsin therefore, couldn't ban that plumber from working but they can require him to get Wisconsin's certification. Wisconsin would still recognize that the Minnesota plumber was licensed in Minnesota. This is unlike same sex marriage. Same sex marriage would be required to recognize that same sex couples were married in another state. The question then would be could the state without same sex marriage deny access to its courts say for divorce.
No. That person would have to meet the requirements of Wisconsin.
exactly! and wisconsin requires licensure in order to be a plumber. it isn't an occupational requirement, its a state licensing requirement.
But he cannot be banned from the occupation simply because he lives in another state.
no argument there. all he needs is a license from wisconsin to be a plumber.
That is because regulation of conditions of employment are not considered a limitation of fundamental right. Wisconsin therefore, couldn't ban that plumber from working but they can require him to get Wisconsin's certification. Wisconsin would still recognize that the Minnesota plumber was licensed in Minnesota.
but that recognition doesn't do a thing to enable him to become licensed in wisconsin. a plumber with a minnesota plumbing license can't just go to work for a plumbing contractor in wisconsin, without first being a licensed plumber in wisconsin.
This is unlike same sex marriage. Same sex marriage would be required to recognize that same sex couples were married in another state.
why? states that don't recognize common law marriages themselves frequently don't recognize those common law marriages that are created in other states. why would same sex marriages be any different?
The question then would be could the state without same sex marriage deny access to its courts say for divorce.
why not? if it doesn't recognize the marriage as valid, there isn't really a case for it.
interesting sidebar. minnesota does recognize other state's professional licenses as valid in this state, for use during emergency situations:
During an emergency or disaster, a person who holds a  license, certificate, or other permit issued by a state of the  United States, evidencing the meeting of qualifications for  professional, mechanical, or other skills, may render aid  involving those skills in this state. The license, certificate,  or other permit of the person, while rendering aid, has the same  force and effect as if issued in this state.
the same thing applies to driving. the only reason i can legally drive in wisconsin with my minnesota driver's license is because the wisconsin legislature has passed a law that explicitly grants a visitor's license, so to speak, to a driver licensed in another state. i'd imagine it looks something like the minnesota law:
==171.03 Â Â Â Â Â 171.03 Persons exempt.
The following persons are exempt from license hereunder:
[---snip---]
(3) a nonresident who is at least 15 years of age and who  has in immediate possession a valid driver's license issued to  the nonresident in the home state or country may operate a motor  vehicle in this state only as a driver;
"Separation of Church and State" is to "black Americans" as "shall make no law prohibiting....or respecting the establishment of Religion" is to "any person"?
FYI and not to split hairs here, but there is no Minnesota plumbing license. Each union has it's own license. St. Paul and Mpls have different licenses and jurisdictions.
THX 1138 - (PFID:13d2c9) - 12:49pm Mar 4, 2004 PST (# 556 of 632) If Van Gogh were alive today, he'd be so medicated he couldn't paint.
"Separation of Church & State" is never mentioned in the Constitution or its Amendments.
It merely states Congress can't make laws respecting an establishment of religion. The Church of England for example.
It then goes on to say: or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...
<ARES>incidentally, this last part of the phrase is the part that atheists frequently forget about.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Â treasure chest - (PFID:4d9c1bb3) - 12:58pm Mar 4, 2004 PST (# 558 of 632) "you people scare me" -- canadian lesbian lurker. ok thx...can't make laws respecting an establishment of religion... so what is that? An establishment of religion... such as Christian (which by the way is my religion of choice) should not have the power to dictate a law.... right?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Â THX 1138 - (PFID:13d2c9) - 01:03pm Mar 4, 2004 PST (# 559 of 632) If Van Gogh were alive today, he'd be so medicated he couldn't paint.
so what is that?
Main Entry: established church Function: noun : a church recognized by law as the official church of a nation or state and supported by civil authority
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Â treasure chest - (PFID:4d9c1bb3) - 01:06pm Mar 4, 2004 PST (# 561 of 632) "you people scare me" -- canadian lesbian lurker. Well then, what exactly is your definition of the separation of church and state?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Â THX 1138 - (PFID:13d2c9) - 01:08pm Mar 4, 2004 PST (# 563 of 632) If Van Gogh were alive today, he'd be so medicated he couldn't paint. Well then, what exactly is your definition of the separation of church and state?
Where the state doesnt' establish an official state religion.
No. That person would have to meet the requirements of Wisconsin.
exactly! and wisconsin requires licensure in order to be a plumber. it isn't an occupational requirement, its a state licensing requirement.
Employment and marriage have not been treated the same by the courts. The problem will arise and people like Breyer, Ginsburg and Stevens will vote to requrie recognition under the full faith and credit clause.
FYI and not to split hairs here, but there is no Minnesota plumbing license. Each union has it's own license. St. Paul and Mpls have different licenses and jurisdictions.
nope, ot. those are the contracors. the individual plumber him/her self is licensed directly by the state department of health.
i'd have used electricians as examples because i know those are licensed by the state board of electricity, except i know that the only tradesfolk that are licensed in wisconsin are plumbers, and then only because of health reasons. :)
Where the state doesnt' establish an official state religion.
actually, it says respecting an establishment of Religion.
since the State isn't an established Religion, this can only mean that it applies to already established Religions. It isn't about the State making itself an a establishment of Religion, it's about the State not respecting non-State establishments of Religion.
That is my definitioin of "Separation of Church & State", if you're going to claim that the 1st Amendment is about Separation of Church & State.
I still don't understand your point. That was just something I quickly typed off when I had to leave. I didn't even recall the post.
My point is/was, the Amendment wasn't about abolishing religion totally from government, it was about not creating a monster state church, such as the Church of England, which had the King as it's head.
Employment and marriage have not been treated the same by the courts. The problem will arise and people like Breyer, Ginsburg and Stevens will vote to requrie recognition under the full faith and credit clause.
you must have missed what i wrote about common law marriages then, eh?
My point is/was, the Amendment wasn't about abolishing religion totally from government
it was about the State not respecting establishments of Religion...or prohibiting their free exercise. It's ALL ABOUT keeping Religion out of the State and vice versa.
ok thx...can't make laws respecting an establishment of religion... so what is that? An establishment of religion... such as Christian (which by the way is my religion of choice) should not have the power to dictate a law.... right?
What are you talking about?
Well then, what exactly is your definition of the separation of church and state?
Why is one necessary? It isn't in the Constitution.
In poll after poll, the American people reject the marriages by a 2-1 margin.
CBS News Poll. Feb. 24-27, 2004. Nationwide.
"Would you favor or oppose a law that would allow homosexual couples to marry, giving them the same legal rights as other married couples?" N=1,545 adults, MoE ± 3
2/04 - 30% favor, 62% oppose, 8% don't know
University of Pennsylvania National Annenberg Election Survey. Feb. 14-23, 2004
"Would you favor or oppose a law in your state that would allow gays and lesbians to marry a partner of the same sex?" Favor/Oppose rotated
30% favor, 64% oppose
ABC News/Washington Post Poll. Feb. 18-22, 2004
"Do you think it should be legal or illegal for homosexual couples to get married?"
39% legal, 55% illegal 6% no opinion
CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll. Feb. 16-17, 2004
"Do you think marriages between homosexuals should or should not be recognized by the law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages?"
2/16-17/04 - 32% Should Be Valid 64% Should Not Be
Time/CNN Poll
"Do you think marriages between homosexual men or between homosexual women should be recognized as legal by the law, or not?"
30% yes, 62% no, 8% not sure
National Public Radio Poll
"Thinking now about gay marriage, that is, allowing a couple who are gay or lesbian to marry one another legally, do you favor or oppose gay marriage?"
12/03 - 30% Favor, 56% Oppose 13% Don't Know
Why? Because some activitist judges say Breyer, Ginsburg and Stevens will do everything to thwart the will of the people. They will intentionally mischaracterize the equal protection reference in the 14th amendment in an attempt to impose their morality on the nation.
the text of the 14th amendment to the us constitution:
AMENDMENT XIV
Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.
Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 2.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,* and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Section 3.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5.
The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
now, let me point out article 6 of the same:
Article. VI.
All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
let me re-point out that second paragraph, just for good measure:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
and again just so that it sinks in:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
notice that there is no reference whatsoever in that paragraph that says anything about any other supporting documents in there. just the constitution, and the laws of the united states. so your bullshit about mischaracterisation of the 14th amendment is just that, bullshit. if there were some other intent, the writers should have written it in, otherwise it isn't a part of the supreme law of the land, and the amendment must be interpreted *exactly* as is written.
Unfortunately there are damn to many people like you. When laws are made and the Constitution is amended it is done for a reason. That is to accomplish something. That must be taken into account or there is no law. The 14th amendment was adopted soley for the reason of protecting black Americans. To state that it applies to same sex marriage is ludicrous. But even if it did there is no equal protection problem. They are treated just like everyone else.
uh....
nope...nothing about black Americans...citizens, yes...any person, sure...but blacks specifically? nope.
you'd think if it was to protect blacks that it might actually mention it?
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
let it sink in a bit, dumbass.
you'd think if it was to protect blacks that it might actually mention it?
kind of hard to do that when the whole purpose of the amendment is equal protection, isn't it?
exactly
If you don't interpret the laws in with the framework of what was intended how are you going to accomplish the goal? Obvious it is the law but what does it mean. If it was a simple as you seem to think, and of course a simpleton would, why the hell, do we need attorneys. God you are big fricking damn idiot. Like I said before you, and people like you, are part of the damn problem.
If you don't damn well believe me,crabs, go read the Congressioanl Record.
kind of hard to do that when the whole purpose of the amendment is equal protection, isn't it?
It was about black Americans. If you weren't so intellectually challenged about historical matters you would know that.
the congressional record is not law, jethro. nor are any of the other supporting documents. now go back and read article 6, and don't come back until its sunk in to your thick skull.
so, you don't give a damn what was trying to be accomplished by legislation or Cosntitutional amendment? Don't you think it is important to know that when reading the law? Because if you don't do that issues that were supposed to be addressed might well be ignored and issues that were never considered will become the law. That is not democratic, now is it?
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Yeah, So what? What the f*** does the 14th amendment mean? Tell me bright boy? It means that people should be treated the same under the law. It was passed because blacks weren't being treated the same. It has no application to gay marriage becasue the law of the various states treats all people the same. Only one man can marry one woman. That applies the same to everyone. No one can marry someone of the same sex. That applies to everyone. So where is equal protection problem? It doesn't exist. But the likes of Breyer, Ginsburg and Stevens will say it does. Get it now?
do you honestly believe that if the amendment had been written singling out black americans, it would have been ratified?
ya know, you still didn't answer my question before, at least not satisfactorily. if 3/4 of the states have laws on the books banning gay marriage, why do we need a constitutional amendment banning them on a federal level?
Yes,it waould have ratified becuase the southern states were not part of the process. If I remeber correctly a few were required to ratify to be readmitted. Those states readmited to the union after it passed had no say.
ya know, you still didn't answer my question before, at least not satisfactorily. if 3/4 of the states have laws on the books banning gay marriage, why do we need a constitutional amendment banning them on a federal level?
because of the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution.
let's say, for instance that i'm a licensed plumber in minnesota. does that give me the right to go over to wisconsin and do plumbing work?
let's say, for instance that i'm a licensed plumber in Minnesota. does that give me the right to go over to Wisconsin and do plumbing work?
No. That person would have to meet the requirements of Wisconsin. But he cannot be banned from the occupation simply because he lives in another state. That is because regulation of conditions of employment are not considered a limitation of fundamental right. Wisconsin therefore, couldn't ban that plumber from working but they can require him to get Wisconsin's certification. Wisconsin would still recognize that the Minnesota plumber was licensed in Minnesota. This is unlike same sex marriage. Same sex marriage would be required to recognize that same sex couples were married in another state. The question then would be could the state without same sex marriage deny access to its courts say for divorce.
lol ares.... it isn't nice to pick on people with less intellectual ability.
TC, do you have any clue what the issues mentioned above are?
if a married man get a sex change, is he/she still married?
nope...nothing about black Americans...citizens, yes...any person, sure...but blacks specifically? nope.
Nor does the 1st amendment specifically say "Separation of Church & State".
No. That person would have to meet the requirements of Wisconsin.
exactly! and wisconsin requires licensure in order to be a plumber. it isn't an occupational requirement, its a state licensing requirement.
But he cannot be banned from the occupation simply because he lives in another state.
no argument there. all he needs is a license from wisconsin to be a plumber.
That is because regulation of conditions of employment are not considered a limitation of fundamental right. Wisconsin therefore, couldn't ban that plumber from working but they can require him to get Wisconsin's certification. Wisconsin would still recognize that the Minnesota plumber was licensed in Minnesota.
but that recognition doesn't do a thing to enable him to become licensed in wisconsin. a plumber with a minnesota plumbing license can't just go to work for a plumbing contractor in wisconsin, without first being a licensed plumber in wisconsin.
This is unlike same sex marriage. Same sex marriage would be required to recognize that same sex couples were married in another state.
why? states that don't recognize common law marriages themselves frequently don't recognize those common law marriages that are created in other states. why would same sex marriages be any different?
The question then would be could the state without same sex marriage deny access to its courts say for divorce.
why not? if it doesn't recognize the marriage as valid, there isn't really a case for it.
interesting sidebar. minnesota does recognize other state's professional licenses as valid in this state, for use during emergency situations:
Chapter Title: EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
Section: 12.42
Text:
12.42 Out-of-state license holders; powers, duties.
During an emergency or disaster, a person who holds a
 license, certificate, or other permit issued by a state of the
 United States, evidencing the meeting of qualifications for
 professional, mechanical, or other skills, may render aid
 involving those skills in this state. The license, certificate,
 or other permit of the person, while rendering aid, has the same
 force and effect as if issued in this state.
the same thing applies to driving. the only reason i can legally drive in wisconsin with my minnesota driver's license is because the wisconsin legislature has passed a law that explicitly grants a visitor's license, so to speak, to a driver licensed in another state. i'd imagine it looks something like the minnesota law:
==171.03
     171.03 Persons exempt.
The following persons are exempt from license hereunder:
[---snip---]
(3) a nonresident who is at least 15 years of age and who
 has in immediate possession a valid driver's license issued to
 the nonresident in the home state or country may operate a motor
 vehicle in this state only as a driver;
Nor does the 1st amendment specifically say "Separation of Church & State".
jt, you defined it as such the other day, while discussing the matter with tc.
if a married man get a sex change, is he/she still married?
He's still man, he just doesn't have a penis.
"Separation of Church and State" is to "black Americans" as "shall make no law prohibiting....or respecting the establishment of Religion" is to "any person"?
is that your point?
TC, do you have any clue what the issues mentioned above are?
quite a bit more of a clue than you do.
jt, you defined it as such the other day, while discussing the matter with tc.
I did?
I said the 1st amendment said "Separation of Church & State"?
if you actually think that is all there is to it, I know some people you should meet.
if you actually think that is all there is to it
I know it's more complicated than that, but that man will never fully be a woman.
I know some people you should meet.
No thank you.
you understand that they are included in the "any person" part of the amendment, right?
FYI and not to split hairs here, but there is no Minnesota plumbing license. Each union has it's own license. St. Paul and Mpls have different licenses and jurisdictions.
is it okay for a hermaphrodite to marry someone?
THX 1138 - (PFID:13d2c9) - 12:49pm Mar 4, 2004 PST (# 556 of 632)
If Van Gogh were alive today, he'd be so medicated he couldn't paint.
"Separation of Church & State" is never mentioned in the Constitution or its Amendments.
It merely states Congress can't make laws respecting an establishment of religion. The Church of England for example.
It then goes on to say: or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...
<ARES>incidentally, this last part of the phrase is the part that atheists frequently forget about.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 treasure chest - (PFID:4d9c1bb3) - 12:58pm Mar 4, 2004 PST (# 558 of 632)
"you people scare me" -- canadian lesbian lurker.
ok thx...can't make laws respecting an establishment of religion... so what is that? An establishment of religion... such as Christian (which by the way is my religion of choice) should not have the power to dictate a law.... right?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 THX 1138 - (PFID:13d2c9) - 01:03pm Mar 4, 2004 PST (# 559 of 632)
If Van Gogh were alive today, he'd be so medicated he couldn't paint.
so what is that?
Main Entry: established church
Function: noun
: a church recognized by law as the official church of a nation or state and supported by civil authority
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 treasure chest - (PFID:4d9c1bb3) - 01:06pm Mar 4, 2004 PST (# 561 of 632)
"you people scare me" -- canadian lesbian lurker.
Well then, what exactly is your definition of the separation of church and state?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 THX 1138 - (PFID:13d2c9) - 01:08pm Mar 4, 2004 PST (# 563 of 632)
If Van Gogh were alive today, he'd be so medicated he couldn't paint.
Well then, what exactly is your definition of the separation of church and state?
Where the state doesnt' establish an official state religion.
need i go on further than that?
you understand that they are included in the "any person" part of the amendment, right?
What does their birth certificate say?
if a married man get a sex change, is he/she still married?
If he gets a sex change does that make him a woman?
No. That person would have to meet the requirements of Wisconsin.
exactly! and wisconsin requires licensure in order to be a plumber. it isn't an occupational requirement, its a state licensing requirement.
Employment and marriage have not been treated the same by the courts. The problem will arise and people like Breyer, Ginsburg and Stevens will vote to requrie recognition under the full faith and credit clause.
FYI and not to split hairs here, but there is no Minnesota plumbing license. Each union has it's own license. St. Paul and Mpls have different licenses and jurisdictions.
nope, ot. those are the contracors. the individual plumber him/her self is licensed directly by the state department of health.
i'd have used electricians as examples because i know those are licensed by the state board of electricity, except i know that the only tradesfolk that are licensed in wisconsin are plumbers, and then only because of health reasons. :)
actually, it says respecting an establishment of Religion.
since the State isn't an established Religion, this can only mean that it applies to already established Religions. It isn't about the State making itself an a establishment of Religion, it's about the State not respecting non-State establishments of Religion.
ares 3/8/04 10:18am
That is my definitioin of "Separation of Church & State", if you're going to claim that the 1st Amendment is about Separation of Church & State.
I still don't understand your point. That was just something I quickly typed off when I had to leave. I didn't even recall the post.
My point is/was, the Amendment wasn't about abolishing religion totally from government, it was about not creating a monster state church, such as the Church of England, which had the King as it's head.
are you saying that the birth certificate is what defines a person?
for the same reason that Wisconisn would have to recognize that the plumber is licensed in Missneota.
Employment and marriage have not been treated the same by the courts. The problem will arise and people like Breyer, Ginsburg and Stevens will vote to requrie recognition under the full faith and credit clause.
you must have missed what i wrote about common law marriages then, eh?
for the same reason that Wisconisn would have to recognize that the plumber is licensed in Missneota.
but that doesn't mean that the plumber is allowed to perform plumbing work in wisconsin, does it?
it was about the State not respecting establishments of Religion...or prohibiting their free exercise. It's ALL ABOUT keeping Religion out of the State and vice versa.
I think the State, by granting marriages in the first place, discriminates against those who do not believe in the idea of marriage.
Get government out of the marriage businees altogether....it's Church business anyway.
ok thx...can't make laws respecting an establishment of religion... so what is that? An establishment of religion... such as Christian (which by the way is my religion of choice) should not have the power to dictate a law.... right?
What are you talking about?
Well then, what exactly is your definition of the separation of church and state?
Why is one necessary? It isn't in the Constitution.
It's ALL ABOUT keeping Religion out of the State and vice versa.
No it's not. You're not putting it into context of the day.
Even if I were to agree with you, that would only be at the Federal level, which means states could do whatever they wish.
Why is one necessary? It isn't in the Constitution.
but he gave one anyway.