Married DU'ers did the Federal govt. sanction/approve your wedding?

[underpants]

This stems from this and the marriage amendment thing
Frist Vows Senate Will Block U.S. Gay Marriages
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040205/us_nm/rights_gays_dc_10

And Catwoman's thread here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=349055&mesg_id=349055

As I remember it (married in Nov. 2002) our preacher said something to the affect of" "by the powers vested in my by the Commonwealth of Virginia...I now pronounce you man and wife"

Where does the federal government fit in there?
Is another line going to be needed to be added to include the feds's okay?

[Ripley]

1. We were married by a judge in Hawaii.

It was outside and was a non-religious ceremony. I did have to go to the social security office to change my name (in Hawaii they allow you to have two middle names which I did so I could keep my birthname officially).

I think it's appalling that Smirk and his friends all love to rant about state's rights until it is an issue they don't agree with. They have done this countless times, this is just another example of it.

Too bad 38 states have already passed their own laws banning gay marriage, altho they will probably be reversed if challenged on constitutionality.

Why is this an issue? I think doctors giving boob jobs to 12 year olds is a more important issue...it actually affects someone's health. :eyes:

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

2. No

My husband and I were married by a judge in Texas. Don't remember if he invoked the 'by the authority invested in me' or not, but if he did, the authority comes from Texas, not the USA.

I am an ordained minister. I have state authority to marry, but not federal authority. Here's how I got the state authority: I went down to the courthouse and showed them my certificate of ordination. The county clerk xeroxed the certificate and pasted it in a book. He stamped the back of my certificate, noting the volume and page in which the copy was placed. When I marry someone, I simply sign my name to the form and note the county, volume, and page number where my certificate was registered.

An interesting side note: you, too, can have the power to legally marry. I got my certificate of ordination after a couple of years of study, but you can buy them from places like the Unification Church. My brother-in-law has one of those, and is famous for presiding at rather strange weddings, including a nudist wedding and a Halloween monster wedding. Again, in his case, he followed similar procedures as I did to get registered with his state (not the same state where I'm registered).

And one more fact: I've been told by other ministers in my order that they sometimes have to re-register their certificate if they are asked to officiate at a wedding in another state.

Seems to me this lays to rest the idea that the "power invested" comes from the federal government.

[underpants]

4. Thank you

They don't have any authority to interfere with the states on this. If the states want to pass those stupid and wrong bills fine. It is none of the nannys' businesses.

[Stuckinthebush]

3. No

The state government did.

Marriage is not a federal issue.

[polmaven]

5. OK, I know this is not the point, but..

I found it interesting that,as late as November, 2002, the term "man and wife" was used. So now, being married, you remained a man, and she ceased to be anything but your wife...

I'm sorry, but this, along with the requirement that a woman adopt her husband's name to be eligible for some benefits, has always been a particular bug-a-boo with me.

Another one is calling heterosexuals "straight". It infers, by design, probably, that homosexuals are warped. Yet it is common usage, even among homosexuals.....AAAAGGGGGHHHHH!

End of rant....continue!

[underpants]

7. Yeah our preacher also called my wife the "helpmeet"

That is in the text of his standard vows.

[outinforce]

17. Concerning Your Concern

polmaven, thanks for sharing your concern about how those of us who are queer use the term "straight".

I do not infer, when others use the word "straight" in reference to heterosexual people, any notion that I am "warped".

Rather, when I hear people use it, I infer the notion that heterosexual people are, well, let's just say that they aren't quite as "gay" -- that is, they are not quite as happy, carefree, and unfettered by the bounds of convention as those of us who are gay are. In other words, I take it to mean that straight = boring.

[Snow]

25. The ritual does not have to follow any particular line,

including that bit about 'man and wife', nor is there a requirement of name change, unless I'm misinformed.

[KharmaTrain]

6. The Federal Government Didn't Know I Was Married...

until we filed jointly for the first time.

Our marriage license...which included a mandatory blood test...was issued by the State Of Illinois and the "contract" provisions are a matter of a state, not a federal court.

Thus, I think the marriage "ammendment" is totally unconstitutional and violates states rights...try that one on a fundie! But then this was the same argument others used about a national drinking age, and while it's not a defacto federal law, try getting federal funding with a drinking age of 18.

[yellowcanine]

13. the marriage "ammendment" is totally unconstitutional?

Uh - yes, but if it is ratified by the states it IS the constitution and then there is no getting around it, except by passing another constitutional amendment.

[Peregrine]

14. An amendment cannot be unconstitutional, its "unpossible."

A proposed amendment is not subject to presidential veto nor court review.

Marriage is a state issue, the only federal issue is "full faith and credit." And whether a law can be used to exclude marriage from the "full faith" clause is doubtful.

But I'm willing to bet that the current SC with its federalists will look the other way (see Bush v. Gore)and uphold a federal marriage "protection" law.

[Bandit]

18. You mean the current "State's Rights" Supreme Court

The one that will rule in favor of the Feds every single time. Marriage is a State's issue. The only way the Federal Government is involved in marriage is through taxation. But I'm sure they can't wait to get involved with telling us how we need to run our lives.

[Hammie]

23. An ammendment can be anything.

There is no rule as to what the contents of a constitutional amendment can be. You could have one that makes and exception to the Full Faith and Credit clause, or you could have one that simply defines what is marriage in the United States. Hell you could even pass one that outlaws a particular beverage ingredient if you can believe that!

All that matters is can you get it passed. Fortunately, the threshold is very high so new ones don't get passed very often.

[Jane Roe]

8. ahhhh, an appeal to states rights

States rights under a federalist system are a beautiful thing!

Nice to see that view expressed on DU -- progressives haven't always been the biggest fans of states rights in the past.

[underpants]

9. That's true

I almost included that in the original thread.

[Jane Roe]

10. as much as states rights is tainted still . . .

with memories of slavery and Jim Crow, I still think it is the best accomodation when we are dealing in greyer areas of moral-political like divorce, crime, gambling and 3d trimester (non-health-related) abortion.

[Cleita]

20. Ronald Raygun wanted less federal government.

He said so many times as he rewarded the rich with the middle classes' tax money so that it would "trickle down" to the poor.

Gee, it would seem that the Busheviks are regular progressives, what with all the federalizing they are doing, first with the selection of their crown prince by the US. Supreme Court effectively reversing the ruling of the Florida State Supreme Court, down the line until we get to THIS.

Of course, we always knew what their real agenda was. There was that nice big fat Treasury surplus that a real progressive left them to rob as it seemed fit. And what about that "tax and spend Democrats" mantra? It seems to have been replaced by a "borrow and give away to filthy rich corporations" mantra.

Once the country is bankrupt and vulnerable to invasion, we won't see these guys anymore. They will be gone, gone GONE to foreign land, just like those Nazis disappeared into various South American countries after the collapse of Germany.

[Jane Roe]

22. Maybe the best way to protect against subversion of federal power . . .

by the Republican administrations is to shrink all parts of the federal government.

Once they have their full third of my income they can't be trusted to keep spending it responsibly over the long term. At least bad states are eaier to run from than a bad federal government.

And I should know: (1) I ran from Texas (relatively easy); and (2) I ran from the US (which is proving somewhat more difficult).

[trof]

11. Afraid not.

Oh dear. Our marriage is not sanctioned by the federal gummint.
Is our daughter a bastard?
DON'T YOU DARE!

All I can find is a "certified copy from the Marriage Register of St. Mary Episcopal Church, Crystal Lake, IL."
Am I in big trouble?
;-)

[PsychoDad]

12. Nope...

Marrage is not a fed issue but a state issue, It's the state that issues the license.

The license is what marries a couple in the eyes of the state, not a ceremony, iirc..

[resist]

15. But what's going to be cool

is when Massachusetts allows gay marriages and suddenly the IRS is flooded with married tax returns. This is going to end up in the Supreme Court where it belongs. I want to see the Supreme Court say that some citizens have certain rights and others don't. You can't bring the religious argument in to it; our government does not allow religion to be determinative of civil laws. They will have no choice but to declare bans on gay marriages as unconstitutional, beuse they are.

[David__77]

16. I'm married, but my state government calls it domestic partnership.

I'm quite certainly married. My state calls it domestic partnership. The federal government of course doesn't acknowledge it and our rights end at the state border.

[Cleita]

19. No, it seems to have never happened until now.

It was, I believe vested in the states. So the Republicans aren't supposed to be for the federal government controlling everything, but they are?

[Solly Mack]

21. South Carolina granted our co-habitation legal status (protection)

People mistake the contempt one has for those pushers of state's rights who cloak their hate and prejudice in the term. The contempt isn't for the rights of states-it's for the ignorance of those who hate so badly they claim a legal right to discriminate.

It's like wrapping yourself in the flag to the exclusion of rational thought. (my country right or wrong)

People wrap themselves in the banner of state's rights in much the same manner...and that is what earns this liberals contempt.

Marriage is a legal issue. No matter what some preacherman would like to claim...if it were not a legal issue, there would be no need to apply to the state to grant a license. And even that preacherman must be certified by the state to perform weddings that are LEGAL.

Legal being the defining term in marriage......

but don't write the federal government off...the SCOTUS is there to protect the rights of citizens (well, in theory) and those states hollering about state's rights just to discriminate against people (38 of them to date) need to be slapped down by the SCOTUS.

state's rights..it's a fine line...walk it carefully.

[patcox2]

24. Fed Gov doesn't sanction the marriage, but it recognizes it.

There are literally hundreds of federal laws which recognize valid state law marriages. Big examples, Social Security benefits, tax laws, pensions, survivor benefits.

Y'all should know that President Clinton signed into law the Defense of Marriage Act, it is already law that the federal government will not respect any state law marriages between people of the same gender.

[Yupster]

26. Under the Ninth Amendment, marriage should be a state issue, but

since the Ninth Amendment has been meaningless for more than 100 years now, the federal government can pretty much do anything they want. They'll declare it a federal issue based on interstate commerce like everything else under the sun.

[Jane Roe]

28. Interesting post

1. Last I knew, * was proposing a Constitutional Amendment, so the 9th and 10th amendments would not be a hindrance in this situation (but there would be the typical super-majority requirements that make it difficult to pass any US Const Amendment).

2. I thought it would have been kewl if the so-called partial birt abortion act had been challenged on 9th and/or 10th amendment grounds. Might have been a politically savory way to get respect for states rights back into US constitutional law.

[Jose Diablo]

27. Yes

Had to apply for a federal license with the Department of Moral and Religious Correctness (DMRC) part of Homeland Security.

:eyes: