This is Why an Amendment is Needed

Published on August 4, 2006 By Dr Guy In Politics

Right or wrong, and I will not take a stand here, this is why there needs to be a national concensus. At the least.

It seems that a Virginia Gay Couple decided to go to Vermont to get "Unionized". 3 years later they split up. The Virginia Courts (not the most conservative, but definitely not liberal) adjudicated the issue and awarded sole custody to the Biological mother. The other fought and lost at every turn. Until she went back to Vermont. Where the Vermont courts are saying since they granted (Vermont, not the courts) the union, they have jurisdiction. Even though, technically, neither was ever a citizen there.

So now we have a standoff. The Biological mother can stay in Virginia and never worry about Vermont. But should she travel outside the state, the other state may be more ameniable to the Vermont courts and grant its ruling. In effect, one parent is trapped in a state. The other begging to drag the child into a more friendly state.

And THAT is contrary to everything the US is built upon. No 2 states can have opposing rulings on the same issue! For then it deprives all citizens of the rights of the United States.

Agree with either V, but you cannot agree that this Dilemna is good. And as much as I hate more laws or more amendments. It is time that we had one. Even if it is that the civil unions in one state cannot trump the laws of another (the worst scenario).

This is not good. And I cannot see how even the most ardent gay rights activist likes this ruling. It does nothing for their cause. Indeed, it promotes just the opposite. It emboldens the opponents to say "See? I told you so". Indeed they did.

For the poo pooers that said this would never happen, the future does make liars out of you, does it not?

And at the center is a child. Lest we forget. I think the principals and the courts have forgotten that.

Comments (Page 1)

Adventure-Dude

on Aug 04, 2006

but see since Vermont support their cause they will simply advocate more for them. It will become a sympathy psychological warefare and in the guilt they will slowly continue to change states statutes.

Dr Guy

on Aug 04, 2006

The Law should never be a "sympathy psycholigical warfare". But that does not mean it will not be.

terpfan1980

on Aug 04, 2006

Interesting case and yes, all the more reason why we need an ammendment or national laws on the issue. Laws that would pass constitutional muster.

MasonM

on Aug 04, 2006

Yeah, sticky situation for sure. Personally I wish this issue would be settled on way or the other. The whole thing is getting pretty stupid.

Dr Guy

on Aug 04, 2006

Laws that would pass constitutional muster.

In this case, it is only an amendment. As the 10th would trump any "law" that congress passed.

Dr Guy

on Aug 04, 2006

Yeah, sticky situation for sure. Personally I wish this issue would be settled on way or the other. The whole thing is getting pretty stupid.

That is what lawyers get paid for. And Judges make names from. It will not be settled in the courts.

bakerstreet

on Aug 04, 2006

I have to wholeheartedly disagree. States rights can be complicated, but we gain nothing by allowing the federal government to continue taking more and more of our decisions away to be decided by people who have no bearing on our communities. Full faith and credit is NOT a necessity in all things.

And THAT is contrary to everything the US is built upon. No 2 states can have opposing rulings on the same issue

I wouldn't have imagined you'd be making the same point as fans of the Roe v. Wade decision. All you are doing when you say that is propping up the ability of the 9th circuit to shove their junk down our throats, and worse, STATE legal decisions. The last thing we need to do is say that people in Virginia have to abide by what people in California or Vermont decide.

Adventure-Dude

on Aug 04, 2006

The last thing we need to do is say that people in Virginia have to abide by what people in California or Vermont decide.

I agree but sadly this is no longer the case. They went to Vermont to get joined because Virginia doesn't do such unions. My opinion is that they should of gone back to Vermont to have the court separation. It seems to me that this would be the more 'fair' option for both. I don't see how this is the State of Virginia's nor Vermont's fault. Virginia recognized Vermont's court union and now Vermont should recognize Virginia's court ruling. If they don't like it they should appeal not play two states against each other.

Dr Guy

on Aug 04, 2006

wouldn't have imagined you'd be making the same point as fans of the Roe v. Wade decision. All you are doing when you say that is propping up the ability of the 9th circuit to shove their junk down our throats, and worse, STATE legal decisions. The last thing we need to do is say that people in Virginia have to abide by what people in California or Vermont decide.

No Baker, This is not Roe V Wade. Simply put it is one state trying to dictate to another. And that is the issue. I care not whether Vermont likes Abortions. That has NO effect on virginia. But when they can reach down into another state and dictate (or in this case, try to) that is bad.

If a Virginia girl runs down to (or up) to Vermont for an abortion, that is one thing. But when a state court decides it can dictate to another state, that is scary. And they will not stop until told to.

It is not the same. Not by half.

bakerstreet

on Aug 04, 2006

I'm sorry, but your statement:

"And THAT is contrary to everything the US is built upon. No 2 states can have opposing rulings on the same issue! For then it deprives all citizens of the rights of the United States."

Is pretty much the exact ruling of Roe v. Wade. I don't think you understand that what you are arguing for is the essential evil of the situation, that people in one state won't have the right to decide because of "freedoms" offered by other states. One state court can't lord over another unless you set up some standard that says they all have to agree or else.

The last thing you want is for the "freedoms" guaranteed by the folks in California to be mandatory nation-wide because of a twisted view of the 14th amendment. If you federalize these institutions, you can bet you'll NEVER get what you want, and your vote will make a damn site less difference in the issue than it would in a state election.

Dr Guy

on Aug 04, 2006

Virginia recognized Vermont's court union and now Vermont should recognize Virginia's court ruling. If they don't like it they should appeal not play two states against each other.

No, actually Virginia never did. That is why the Bio mother got sole custody. And that is the rub.

Dr Guy

on Aug 04, 2006

Reply By: BakerStreet

No Baker, that is not what I am arguining. Indeed, an Abortion is a singulatory event. It is done. But this transcends that. Now 2 states are involved. And depending upon where they reside, there are 2 different laws!

Hell! I want RVW to be overturned! it is bad law. But this is just turds. As it leaves not only 2 people, but a child in limbo. Abortion is there and done (sad to say). This is forever. It has to be settled so that should the birht mother travel to another state, she does not risk confiscature. And (albeit small) vice versa.

bakerstreet

on Aug 04, 2006

I'm not talking about abortion, Dr. Guy. For the last 30+ years quasi-Liberals have been arguing that the government, through the courts, should be able to impose their will on states that have decided issues differently. The reason they use is the 14th amendment, stating that "privileges and immunities" are like some domino effect. Roe v. Wade is a notable example.

How is that any different than what you are saying? You admit that the Vermont decision is not enforceable in Virginia. Now you want to go further and impose your standard of marriage federally? Do you think we'd be better off expanding the neo-socialist practice of using the courts, or worse, a runaway federal legislature, to end-run around the state voter?

I know it sounds like I am making the same argument you are, but we are fundamentally different in that you are accepting THEIR tactics to achieve your aims. They're going to impose on you, so you'll beat them to the punch. I think ANY imposition, even if I agree with the outcome, strengthens other people's ability to impose on ME, and I'd prefer it not become any more of a common practice.

Dr Guy

on Aug 05, 2006

I know it sounds like I am making the same argument you are, but we are fundamentally different in that you are accepting THEIR tactics to achieve your aims. They're going to impose on you, so you'll beat them to the punch. I think ANY imposition, even if I agree with the outcome, strengthens other people's ability to impose on ME, and I'd prefer it not become any more of a common practice.

No, I understand your point. However, this is a case that the federal courts are goin to adjudicate. And we can either be ruled by the tyranny of the non-elected, or have our elected people at least make an appearance of following the will of the constituents.

The Genie is already out of the bottle and cannot be shoved back in. Now we have to make the most of the situation that exists. Frankly, between you me and aunt Tillie, I would rather see one standard (which I have opined on in the past - but not here), than what is happening now. For all that has been accomplished by this foolishness is it has given the courts the opportunity to legislate to us, instead of having us do the legislating from elected representatives.

bakerstreet

on Aug 05, 2006

The trouble is, doc, I consider the federal legislature to be just as tyrannical, and frankly just as un-elected, as the courts. We have zero control of them; their strings are pulled at the national level. The farther you get from your front door, the less power you have, and the tip top of that scale is washington.

To me, the more responsibilities we shift from our local communities and states to the federal arena is just that much less real representative government we have. Worse, it's just that much more ability OTHER states have of imposing their will on us. Remember, you didn't vote for Chappaquiddick Ted, yet when you shift state responsibilities to the federal government, he has as much say about what goes on in your state as your "elected" congressmen have, and often a lot more because of the power issue.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!