Or, alternatively, if your goal was to make an unchallengable statement as to what the United States Government defines marriage as, the FMA is the correct way to go.

You cannot point out the FMA advocates as proof for your own case. Yes, DOMA is being challenged, but you’ll note that very few of those challenges are successful; your description of events defies logic.

That’s a circular argument and you know it. If Congress has the authority to describe what class of documents are to be given “Full Faith and Credit”, then they are not, by definition, “restricting constitutional rights”; they are wielding constitutional powers. You’re begging the question.

what part of “FULL” don’t you get? That means that any proscriptions by Congress cannot detract from that.

That too is one of the more ridiculous arguments you’ve put forth. You’re arguing that the states have to give credit to ALL proceedings and judgments because they use the word “full”? An alternative (and correct) reading would say that if the States or Congress allow a certain proceeding to fall under the clause, then the states have to give that proceeding “full faith and credit”.

Words have meaning, Steven, and the Committee on Style headed by Governor Morris had a specific intent in their words.

You’ve got a lot of smug in you for someone who does not know the name was “Governeur Morris”, not “Governor”. And you have the audacity to tell me to read up on it!

One last thing: the level of debate has everything to do with more pin-dancing, not the basic constructs

Right. So, when the Eleventh Circuit talked about “strict scrutiny” versus “Rational basis” for whether DOMA violates the 14th Amendment, that was just pin-dancing?

Something tells me that you’ve read like, two books from LRC on the constitution and haven’t dipped a toe in modern jurisprudence.

Ever heard of Greyhound Corp. V. United States? I have: “Doubt relative to statutory construction should be resolved in favor of the individual, not the government.”

Sorry, Steve, but you just don’t seem to get the fundamental concepts of how consent of the governed, federalism, and individual rights fit together.

As for the Full Faith and Credit Clause, the clause itself is the governing statement: what part of “FULL” don’t you get? That means that any proscriptions by Congress cannot detract from that.

Words have meaning, Steven, and the Committee on Style headed by Governor Morris had a specific intent in their words. I suggest you go study it, since you appear to be seriously lacking in that area.

And arguing to authority is meaningless, especially since the so-called authorities are generally clueless on those fundamentals as well–and that includes the current President-elect.

One last thing: the level of debate has everything to do with more pin-dancing, not the basic constructs, which you lack an understanding of.

Knew darn well something was wrong. That wasn’t my good friend, Cattrot. Never once did I think of that comment as being in character. Regret that you’re having these troubles. Just don’t let that crumb force you to use another identity in the interests of trying to get distance from him. You’re Cattrot. There’s only one Cattrot!

As to my interchange with Steven, thank you for the kind remarks. When speaking of the moral superstructure at the core of being I am referring, of course, to the form and presence of God the Son, Jesus Christ. In Acts 17:28 the glorious Saint Paul teaches us that “in Him, we live and move and have our being”. So in perceiving the superstructure itself we come to realize that it is in no way static. On the contrary, it most intensely alive. It is, in fact, life itself. We are most fortunate to share in this life in the Blessed Sacrament, Cattrot. In and of ourselves we are wholly unworthy of the honor.

You are correct. The fake CT posts were from the same IP address as “Libertarian Joseph”, “Joseph Marzullo”, “Libertine Party” and “Dick”.

That also includes the N-word post he tried to pawn off as yours on a different thread.

“DOMA was prima facie unconstitutional

That is a downright lie, Seebeck. From Article IV Sec 1.:

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.

Sorry, Michael, but Congress was well within its authority to approve DOMA.”

Nope I told the truth. Congress may prescribe the manner in which such acts are proved, sure, but NOT the manner in which they are disallowed, resticted, or prohibited. The clause you quote in error indicates recongizition of those acts, not circumscription of restrictions on them. Remember the Tenth Amendment applies, too.

Congress has no authority to pass unconstitutional legislation, and if passed it has no effect. See Marbury v. Madison, applied in this case through Loving v. Virginia.

Durckenmiller also erroneously claims @45:

“And yes, using federal power to usurp state power in order to preserve individual constitutional rights is not only entirely appropriate, but part of the first duty of representative government.

There is no, nor should there be, an individual “right” to get married, in terms of what marriage means in the context of the modern State.”

But there is. It is part of the unenumerated rigths of the Ninth Amendment, and it has its roots in teh First and Fourth Amendments as well. Go read Loving v. Virginia. Just because YOU in your statist mental illness think there should be no right to get married, making it then either impossible or a government-allowed privilege, doesn’t mean that it isn’t there, because is clearly is.

And Steven @49 and @54 is dead-on correct.

I think were on two different wavelengths here, Steven. My point are largely philosophical, not legal, in the hope of bringing something more in the way of a foundation to these arguments. That is in no way to say they are not germaine, au contraire, they are simply more compelling and decisive that way.

When speaking of a moral structure that is given, what I have in mind is a morality that is natural to its environment, that comes with the territory so to speak. One might say with accuracy that it is ontological or present in the very being of things. We know of such structures through revelation, an objective source. In contrast, alternative moralities arise only subjectively and are at best merely psychological, never reaching to the depth of the ontological. And it is precisely here that the weakness of these subjective moralities is perceived. They can be no more than an imposition upon a pre-existing superstructure and have authenticity only to the extent that they are in conformity with it. The idea of “gay marriage”, so-called, lacks conformity with this superstructure and can only be introduced by doing violence to it. Hence the point about coersion.

I’m curious: how would one “shrink” marriage? Does that mean you’re in support of the reinstitution of miscegenation laws?

Elif air ab dinich