""No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.
This is no different than the law regarding Marriage that exists anyway. It allows each and every State to exercise the Rights they ALREADY have and exercise by treaty among the Several States. In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife. This is simply upholding the States rights to issue permits and licenses as they see fit while reserving the legal "definition" of two words ... "marriage" and "spouse" on a Federal level. It does not preclude or disallow civil unions that are legally binding but do not include these terms. On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 4:13 PM, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: > > <sigh> > So you CANNOT support the drivel you presented. > > There, of course, is no such thing as "Article III, Amendment I" > > Want to try again? Apparently not. > > > Regard$, > --MJ > > “[T]he ultimate touchstone of constitutionality is > the Constitution itself and not what we have said > about it.” > Felix Frankfurter, Graves v. New York, 306 US 466 (1939) > > > > At 05:07 PM 1/8/2011, you wrote: > > No, I need not identify anything. You are the one that chose to bring the > subject matter up, and I answered your question! It is, what it is. > > Read, study, (away from and apart from the > "Militiamen/TaxProtest/Anti-Illuminati/AlexJones/PrisonPlanet/Conspiratorialist > web sites Michael!! > > <Grin>!! > > > > KeithInKöln > > > > On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 10:48 PM, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: > > You will need to (better) identify some Article, Section and Clause or > Amendment of the US Constitution. > I provided a copy for simplicity: > http://www.constitution.org/cons/constitu.<http://www.constitution.org/cons/constitu.txt> > txt > > <http://www.constitution.org/cons/constitu.txt> Regard$, > --MJ > > “[T]he ultimate touchstone of constitutionality is > the Constitution itself and not what we have said > about it.” > Felix Frankfurter, Graves v. New York, 306 US 466 (1939) > > > > > > > At 04:27 PM 1/8/2011, you wrote: > > For starters Michael, try "Article The Third, Amendment One" > > On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 8:34 PM, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: DOMA is > very much Constitutional. > > > > Really? How about citing the article, section and clause or amendment > you imagine it is based. Here is the Constitution: > http://www.constitution.org/cons/constitu.txt > Regard$, --MJ > "[Some people] have a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak > to lower the powerful to their own level, and reduces men to prefer equality > in slavery to inequality with freedom" -- Alexis De Tocqueville. > > -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options > & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > * Visit our other community at > http://www.PoliticalForum.com/<http://www.politicalforum.com/> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the > latest breaking news, and more. > > > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > * Visit our other community at > http://www.PoliticalForum.com/<http://www.politicalforum.com/> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > > > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > * Visit our other community at > http://www.PoliticalForum.com/<http://www.politicalforum.com/> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > > > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > -- Mark M. Kahle H. -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
