I won't pretend not to be delighted by this news:

Spain Legalizes Same-Sex Marriages

June 30, 2005 -- another day to be celebrated!



The Netherlands, Belgium, and now Spain. And Number Four will probably be right next door pretty soon:



To be debated:

When persons who have been legally married to persons of the same sex in other nations become American citizens, will the USA recognize their marriages? Should they? Why or why not?

No. The definition of "marriage" in the United States is between a man and a woman.

If gay people want to marry, they know have up to four places where they can do this legally. More power to them.

But, the vast majority of Americans do not believe in redefining a basis social institution in order to pacify a very small (but vocal) minority. Civil unions? That's something else and something that I could support. But redefining marriage? No.

There are many American legal concepts that the countries that you mentioned don't recognize. For example, a person who is legally licensed to carry a concealed gun will not have that legal status recognized by Canada, Belgium, Spain, or Holland.

Every country has the right to draw their own lines. Our lines are drawn fairly most of the time due to our system of representative democracy. The courts, from time to time completely subvert this process but that's another topic in another thread.

When gays can convince 50%+1 of their representatives in the House and Senate to support "gay marriage" and when they elect a president who will sign off on that legislation, then gay marriage will become law.

Not before. And, I suspect, not in my lifetime.

When persons who have been legally married to persons of the same sex in other nations become American citizens, will the USA recognize their marriages? Should they? Why or why not?

No state should recognize a same sex marriage performed in a foreign country. I see no difference between this issue and the one that is percolating in our court system today about the recognition of gay marriages performed in Massachusetts. If anything, the sister state situation has more constitutional potential to require recognition (through the full faith and credit clause). Even in that situation, however, there are strong protections against the recognition, through the federal DOMA and state mini-DOMAs.

I cannot imagine a state court recognizing a foreign same sex marriage. Under what theory? Moreover, strong policy reasons support not recognizing them. Those policy reasons are clearly evident in the Defense of Marriage Acts on both the federal and state levels.

HayleyAnne

I am not sure that it is quite so easy to equate state to state relations within the broader framework of the US as foreign relations between the US and another country.

What (for instance) happens if Spain views an American refusal to recognise Spanish marriages (lets say that Spain makes no distinction between same or different sex marriage) as a huge impediment to Spanish / US relations? Say (hypothetically) that Spanish assistance on the WOT becomes dependant on the US completely recognising all marriages carried out under Spanish law for example.

Whilst procedures exist for dealing with intra-US situation like this, there aren't really very many governing international relations...US law contains a lot of provisions for managing the relations between states, but isn't foreign policy far more flexible?

Ptarmigan. I think it would be like a treaty situation then. Congress would have to specifically adopt a provision requiring states to recognize such marriages. I can't imagine that Congress would do this, given DOMA is already on the books.

I think that the hot and highly contested issue of gay marriage has gotten everyone off on the wrong foot.

Remember, the scenario put forth involves naturalization of citizens of another country. The simple truth is that while it may be legal for me to take drugs in Holland, when I come to America, I can't say, "...it was legal when I was in Holland...". It's irrelevant. The laws of the land must be followed or you can leave. In this case, the laws of the land must be followed, or you can find another country to emigrate to. (As bad a law as it is.)

I don't think the US should be forced to recognize the marriages either. We have our laws for our nation. If you don't like it, leave. Now I do believe that, if not already in place, there should be options in place for foreign nationals of the same sex and are married who visit here and, say in the event of an accident, are given more leway. (Like being able to visit your spouse in the hospital, etc. without hassle)

As a citizen though, the law is the law. As crappy as that law is.

Ok I am gay so I am in favour of gay marriage. However, if you have paid your taxes in one US state, does that exempt you from taxes in any other you may hold residence? Surely not! Yes a gay Spanish marriage CANNOT be ruled illegal in the States, but at the same time, it cannot override the legal system of another sovereign state and carry the same statutory rights as a heterosexual marriage until that is cast in legislation in the country of entry. The debate is as rhetorical as the NY Knicks vs the NY Mets. It is simply up to the US to leave behind its links to the old apartheid and step on the same playing field with the rest of us. Then there is no debate.

Well here is a gay marriage debate where polygamy finally can't be called a red herring. (can Spaniards serve red herring as tapas?)

If we allow naturalized gay-married Spaniards to retain their "married" status, what do we say if a Saudi and his wives want the same privilege?

Sorry - I have the same feelings about foreign gay marriages as I do child/adult marriage, polygamy and forced female circumcision. We don't do that in my state.

When persons who have been legally married to persons of the same sex in other nations become American citizens, will the USA recognize their marriages? Should they? Why or why not?
Interestingly, Spain won't let Spaniards marry citizens (of the same sex) from countries who do not allow gay marriage, including presumably the United States.

Spain's Gay Marriage Law Hits First Snag



edited for clarity

I am very delighted by this news (although it is totally against what my party goes for).

When persons who have been legally married to persons of the same sex in other nations become American citizens, will the USA recognize their marriages? Should they? Why or why not?


It will most likley not be officially recognized. Although i wish we could actually give all people the same freedom as announced in our Constution. But currently homosexuality is almost against the law. Homosexual Americans are chastised and not even given fair treatment. I would love for the government recognize the same sex marriage however due to the stupidy of Bush and yes some of the most leading Republicans we will not get a same sex law to be officially recognized in the United States.

There is already precedent in this case from way back I believe- polygamous societies can not have multiple wives in the US- I know this because of working with Saudi crew chiefs back in the early 80s- my friend had 4 wives, and they would only allow one to enter the US as his wife- the other 3 had to come on tourist Visas.

He was a cool cat, really liked him, whatever stereotype I had of polygamist societies and Saudi societies got a real slap from this guy- I am still friends with him, and correspond now and then- he is currently living in Brazil for a while- but his other 3 wives were very hurt that the US wouldn't recognize them as his "real" family!

He was attempting to convert me back in those days, when it was still okay to be Islamic in America - and I really got an eye opener into thier culture- the good side of it.

There are quite a few nations that don't recognize already married polygamous families from countries that allow polygamy- so I am going out on a limb here and saying it probably applies to same sex marriages!

"Sorry - I have the same feelings about foreign gay marriages as I do child/adult marriage," Ok, that one violate the rights of the child, who is not qualified to make that sort of choice...

"polygamy" What's wrong with polygamy? Nothing. If several people want to live together-let them. How is it your business?
"and forced female circumcision." Keyword is "forced". That's what's wrong with it...
" We don't do that in my state." Well, we should.

Anyhow, the way I see it - there has been a mix up of church and state. The religious marriage and the state's marriage should be separate.
If you are Catholic and go to church to be married before God what do you care if the state recognises it or not? God did, period.
Pretty much the same thing goes for all the other religions, and we do have freedom of religion in US. Thus, state marriage becomes only a matter of financial benefits. How are two males less deserving of them than a male + female? So, it's reasonable to simply give them state marriage. Vatican doesn't have to recognise it.

1. What is the difference between someone who is 17 years and 364 days old and an 18 year old's decision? There isn't a brightline when someone can make responsible choices, and you are just establishing that someone who is legally a child can't make decisions well.

2. Yeah, there's a lot wrong with polygamy. And I hope you know that polygamy isn't people just living in the same house, it's a man married to multiple women. (This wasn't suggested by your post). Polygamy is also usually associated with cults and religious extremism. I have a question: How would you feel if you grew up having 7 moms and one dad? Wow. That's all I'm going to say to that question. Wow.

3/4. I don't know who you are quoting or what you are responding to.

The rest of your post is off-topic. This topic is about Spain recognizing the marriages, not about whether gay marriage is good or not.

Polygamy may be associated with cults and extremism, but it doesn't necessarily mean them. In the same way any marriage can be considered as linked with cults and extremism, because married people are well known to commit hideous crimes.
7 moms and 1 dad-I don't know, I have no idea. How about asking someone in that situation? Don't automatically presume its horrible.

Young people in general seem to make bad decisions as far the elderly are concerned. Not a cause to deny them the right to make these decisions. And a 17 year old is quite capable of making intelligent decisions.

Yes, US should recognise the marriage of same sex couples from Spain.
No, US probably won't, because it is not very logical, when it comes to politics and religion. Just like everybody else.

When persons who have been legally married to persons of the same sex in other nations become American citizens, will the USA recognize their marriages? Should they? Why or why not?

Absolutely not. Until it is legal in the United States it should NOT be recognized. We can’t turn around and give recognition to something that is outlawed in our country.




Giving everyone freedom? Then you must open to the door to almost everything, things you may not see as right. Bestiality, polygamy, drugs, incest.......one day you might see polygamist and polyandrous marriages arising as an alternative to divorce and being fostered by different religious groups.

Sally gets to stay in her own home with her kids, keep the same friends and neighbors and not have to put up with Bill any more. Laura gets to have Bill, without having to raise and take care of Sally’s kids. If Sally gets lonely and meets Bob: Sally, Bill, and Laura may just decide to marry Bob.

This scenario sounds silly but if you allow gay marriages, what right do you have to tell someone who wants a different type of marriage that they can not have it? If you say no, then are you being tolerant?
If you open the door because you use the term "freedom" then you must allow almost every different combination to be recognized by the law.

Homosexual American’s chastised? You really think so. I read recently that every new sitcom on all the major networks has at least one homosexual writer on staff and there were over twenty six homosexuals in prime-time television playing the part of homosexuals. They have their own prime time cooking and decorating shows, their own sitcoms…….I do not see it anymore.

I personally am against same-sex marriage, and allowing it to penetrate our country as a means by which was achieved on foreign soil is not in America's best interest. I think that, although their marriage may be legally binding in their homeland, it should not be in the United States because we remain in an up-or-down state of ordered chaos while dealing with same-sex marriage.

America should respect their lifestyles of other all people, but to grant American marriage benefits to same-sex couples when we deny our own people that choice is hypocritical in the finest form.

This is such a cop-out answer, I'd almost laugh it off if this weren't a serious debate forum. Aside from polygamy, each one of these "slippery slope" arguments is a failure of logic and an offense to the homosexual community. Polygamy has occurred frequently in our country's history--my home state of Utah still having jokes made about it.

Are you actually arguing that same-sex marriage legalization will lead to the legalization of bestiality? One is two consenting adults; the other is a human engaging in non-consensual sex with another species. I don't know of a single liberal who condones bestiality or incest.

Incest, as has been argued countless times, has biological and genetic problems--children who result from incestual relationships have a higher chance of developing genetic flaws. No child can result from a homosexual relationship, so this is not a problem.

Frankly, it is the conservative culture in our country which is demeaning and degrading marriage. Homosexuality is not illegal--all the others you listed are. Since it is not illegal, homosexuals should be allowed to marry one another. They certainly aren't going to marry someone of an opposite gender, so all that is prevented in prohibiting them from marrying is a degradation of the definition of marriage. Senator Rick Santorum said he views gay marriage as an affront to the institution of marriage.

So let me get this straight--marriage is not about love, otherwise we'd allow same-sex couples to wed. If it isn't about love, what is it about? This is why marriage has become so trivialized in our society. It's not about love--it's about maintaining the status quo. Or something like that. I still have yet to hear a rational, logical explanation for why gay marriage should be kept illegal.

Consanguineous mating has less of a danger of causing birth defects (if once or twice, not excessively) as a woman of forty-one having a child.

Link

The findings of Dr. Bennett's work were that a couple related by more than one relative had a two to three percent chance more likely as to cause genetic defects.

Robin Bennett in an interview with ABCNews:





Moving on...

Same-sex marriage should not be recognized in America when sanctioned in other countries because it leads to a breakdown of the morals that the majority of us hold. The phrase "majority rules, minority rights" is important to remember. Some of the population (the minority) may desire same-sex marriage to be legal, however the majority finds this immoral- thereby, by sheer outnumbering (be it logical or not) it is not and most likely will not be recognized in America.

How are heterosexual marriages contracted in other countries treated by our government? Just curious.

I'm delighted to see that Spain has legalized same-sex marriage. I'll never understand what the 'threat' is to straight marriages when this happens. Marriage is a legal institution, not a religious sacrament. If it were merely a religious sacrament, it would be illegal to perform it outside a church. Since people are married by city officials and judges all the time, there should be no barriers for nonrelated consenting adults to marry each other.

When persons who have been legally married to persons of the same sex in other nations become American citizens, will the USA recognize their marriages? Should they? Why or why not?

No, there should be no special treatment of foreign gay couples.

The rights and wrongs of gay marriage, specifically are immaterial. The central principle here is that one is bound by the laws of a country when one is in it, whether or not one is aware of them, and whether or not one agrees with them.

If Spanish married gays have a problem with not having the divorce rights, not having the next-of-kin rights, and not having the tax advantages of straight married couples when they visit or emigrate to America, then they have the option not to visit or emigrate.

The same is also true of polygamists.

But the same is also true of any other national illegality, and the same is true in reverse. Just as an American abroad who breaks a domestic law in his host country cannot automatically expect a jury trial (unless that is provided for in the local legal system), cannot automatically expect presumption of innocence (unless that is provided for in the local legal system. Similarly, an American in Britain or Japan has no right to bear arms just because their home legislation says that is their inalienable right, because the US Constitution does not (yet) apply to anyone - American or otherwise - outside the USA (except in certain special cases including diplomats and the armed forces).

This is true of all countries, and is a central element of national sovereignty.

Now, if there were some kind of international treaty that said all forms of marriage were equally valid in all signatory countries, and that treaty were ratified and became part of domestic US law, then gay married Spaniards could expect the same treatment in the US as they get at home, because US law would specifically guarantee that, without having to make gay marraiges legal internal to the USA.

But that's probably rather less likely than a US domestic gay marriage amendment, given the current US mistrust of international institutions and treaties.

And all of that remains true whether or not gay marriage is "right" or "wrong" and regardless of how it affects the institution of marriage. As I said at the start, these discussions are immaterial to the debate question.