An upcoming Constitutional Crisis… Same-sex Marriage.

I had an exam in a State and Local Government class where we were asked about the “Full Faith and Credit Clause” of the United States Constitution.  I see a very big crisis coming in the future with Article IV here, very soon…  What do you think? Continue reading

To French Gay Marry; or to Not French Gay Marry…


The French Sénat

The United States isn’t alone in it’s battle for marriage equality.  The lower house of France just overwhelmingly passed a resolution calling for gays and lesbians to be given the right to marry.  The issue now moves to the upper house, the Senate of France, or Sénat du française.

While the Socialist majority controls an overwhelming number of seats in the National Assembly (the lower house) it carries only a small margin of control in the Senate — which of course, brings out the need for the  Socialist Party, which includes French President François Hollande; to get every vote in the Senate as they can — if they want to see the issue move forward.

Engineer Driss Houat, 69, told CNN Thursday he opposes the measure.

quote-open“I am completely against it because God created man and woman so that they could be married. Not for anything else. It’s absurd for me to see this bill pass,” he said.

But Myriam Duru, 37, a manager at a Tommy Hilfiger store, disagrees.

quote-open“I am Muslim, so I believe in God. I think it’s not a problem for me to accept. I don’t understand people who think that God exists and can say ‘I’m against the happiness of people,'” she said.

To Gay Marry or Not to Gay Marry? That is the question. Wether ’tis nobler…

There’s no shortage of opinions when it comes to gay marriage.  That’s for sure.  The fact that California’s Proposition 8 made it all the way to the United States Supreme Court is a final testament to that fact, I think.  Regardless of the upcoming outcome, now that the official arguments for Prop 8 are over; and the arguments for the Defense of Marriage Act are now set for tomorrow morning — we’ve got a lot of possible landslide legislative and cultural changes up and coming within just days.

One argument is the notion of effectively separating the institution of legal marriage into two parts, “marriage,” between a man and a woman, and “civil unions,” apparently, between any two people, with the same benefits of marriage — just… not.   In other words, “Separate, but Equal.”

Haven’t we already figured out that that doesn’t work?