Thankfully, Collins and a couple other brave Republican senators went against their party. Just like in NY during the gay marriage vote, more and more brave Republicans are following their individual consciences and going against their party’s ideals by voting for gay rights. That’s a good thing. I just don’t understand why they get more credit for it than the Democrats, when’s there’s just a few of them.

Yes, the individual Republicans in New York may be getting a bit more credit than any individual Democrats because they risked more and it cost them more to support us. But both were needed.

And I personally give a lot of credit to Dean Skelos who could have single-handedly stopped the marriage bill (a couple different ways) but decided to allow it to become law (other than NOM, I’m pretty much alone in that).

But it is Cuomo (with Bloomberg) who is getting most of the credit. And, as he was the driving force, he deserves it. No matter what his party might be.

But as for DADT… sorry, but the credit goes to the person who fought to make it happen, not the one who was obstructionist in every possible circumstance. Collins’ patience is astounding. Reid repeatedly refused to meet her part way or give ANY concessions for her to build a coalition around. Zero conciliation, all bluster, all partisan crap. She did it anyway.

I’m thankful for the Democrats (and Republicans) who voted for repeal. They deserve credit.

But you can’t gild a turd. You can’t decide that Reid had a special secret plan that he would spring on everyone (of which Collins was a pawn) and surprise, surprise, when Collins and Lieberman did an end-pass around him – well it was what he intended all the while.

Credit for DADT repeal belongs to Collins and Lieberman. Not as an “also voted”, not as “Collins and”, not as “a B+”, and sure as hell not as “an invaluable assist”.

However, the courts have never bought the argument that one state must accept a marriage performed in another. States usually do, but they are not compelled to.

But credit where credit is due, including many Democrats.

Fred– I haven’t read any legal decisions on this matter, but i can read english. your interpretation of the second sentence contradicts the clear english of the first, and equal protection of the law.

Ben, I can also read English and nowhere in those two phrases is any contradiction. Article 4, Section 1 establishes that the states must give full faith and credit to the laws/legal decisions of the other states and, this is the word that starts the second clause, Congress may regulate the effects thereof by passage of appropriate law.

And that is exactly what Congress did when they included this in DOMA:

Section 2. Powers reserved to the states
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.

Again, Congress did nothing illegal when they included this language in DOMA as the Constitution specifically authorizes Congress to do this if they so wish.

Section 1 – Each State to Honor all others

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

It violates equal protection.

DOMA also allows the states to ignore those legal civil marriages contracted in other states, in blatant violation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution.

No, it wasn’t a “blatant violation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause”.

Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

It’s always that second part that people forget. It allows the Congress to regulate the first part if they so chose. And that is exactly what they did in DOMA when they told the states they didn’t have to recognize same-sex marriages from states that allowed it.

I’m not saying that it was nice of Congress to do it but they hardly violated any laws or the Constitution by doing so.