SSM and the Full Faith and Credit Clause (1 Viewer)

[Tucker Case]

With parts of DOMA recently being struck down, I'm curious as to what people think about section 2:

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.

Defense of Marriage Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

To me, this seems to be in violation of the full Faith and Credit Clause of the US constitution Full Faith and Credit Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Full faith and credit ought to be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings, of every other state; and the legislature shall, by general laws, prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings, shall be proved, and the effect which judgments, obtained in one state, shall have in another.

So the poll Question is simple:

Does the Full Faith and Credit Clause mean that an Anti-SSM state must recognize a SSM form another state, constitutionally?

Yes, it is unconstitutional for a state to withhold recognition of a SSM as per the FFaC clause

No, it is not unconstitutional for a state to withhold recognition of a SSM as per the FFaC clause

Other/Don't know

 

[Gipper]

With parts of DOMA recently being struck down, I'm curious as to what people think about section 2:



Defense of Marriage Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

To me, this seems to be in violation of the full Faith and Credit Clause of the US constitution Full Faith and Credit Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



So the poll Question is simple:

Does the Full Faith and Credit Clause mean that an Anti-SSM state must recognize a SSM form another state, constitutionally?

Yes, it is unconstitutional for a state to withhold recognition of a SSM as per the FFaC clause

No, it is not unconstitutional for a state to withhold recognition of a SSM as per the FFaC clause

Other/Don't know

States allowed for legal SSM because they knew that DOMA violates FF&C.

They were right.

Withholding recognition is absolutely unconstitutional.

 

[digsbe]

No, a state that bans SSM should not have to recognize a same sex marriage done in a state where it is legal. It is an abuse of the FF&C cause to essentially give a state the power to set policy for the nation, especially when many states ban SSM at the level of their state constitutions.

 

[Gipper]

No, a state that bans SSM should not have to recognize a same sex marriage done in a state where it is legal. It is an abuse of the FF&C cause to essentially give a state the power to set policy for the nation, especially when many states ban SSM at the level of their state constitutions.

Do you know how often FF&C is abused though? This is a drop in the bucket.

The Constitution is still rife with legalized governmental abuse, ranging from FF&C to Eminent Domain and beyond. Sometimes you just have to pick your battles. I don't think SSM is one.

 

[digsbe]

Do you know how often FF&C is abused though? This is a drop in the bucket.

The Constitution is still rife with legalized governmental abuse, ranging from FF&C to Eminent Domain and beyond. Sometimes you just have to pick your battles. I don't think SSM is one.

Not when it violates specific laws and state Constitutions. Louisiana has a pretty straightforward and strict provision in theirs.

§15. Defense of Marriage

Section 15. Marriage in the state of Louisiana shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman. No official or court of the state of Louisiana shall construe this constitution or any state law to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any member of a union other than the union of one man and one woman. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized. No official or court of the state of Louisiana shall recognize any marriage contracted in any other jurisdiction which is not the union of one man and one woman.

Added by Acts 2004, No. 926, §1, approved Sept. 18, 2004, eff. Oct. 19, 2004.

http://www.legis.state.la.us/lss/lss.asp?doc=286906

As far as the states go, they shouldn't be required to violate their highest law of the land to recognize something done in another state. A state doesn't need to recognize a medical marijuana card because it was issued somewhere where it is legal, they don't need to recognize professional licenses, and I don't think they should be forced to recognize prohibited marriages.

 

[Gipper]

As far as the states go, they shouldn't be required to violate their highest law of the land to recognize something done in another state. A state doesn't need to recognize a medical marijuana card because it was issued somewhere where it is legal, they don't need to recognize professional licenses, and I don't think they should be forced to recognize prohibited marriages.

I personally agree. Now more than ever, I see the extensive flaws in the FF&C Clause. In the times of our forefathers, it helped to mend economies and make interstate business and commerce very easy and streamlined. These days, it divides more than it unites. I'd like to see it gone, but the chances of that happening fall somewhere between zero and "lol".

 

[Fisher]

The more likely path is that it will parallel common law marriage or bigamy laws which are a legal mess under FF&C. Some states allow bigamists to divorce, some other do not because the marriage is invalid under operation of law in their state; states with no common law marriage might allow the courts to handle some variation of a divorce proceeding as to assets, but not allow CLM to be a basis for spousal immunity from testimony. I really think the country could benefit from a Uniform Domestic Relations Code but there are just too many damn variants from state to state to deal with that I am not sure they could all be reconciled into a acceptable consensus as to what the law should be.

 

[notquiteright]

No, a state that bans SSM should not have to recognize a same sex marriage done in a state where it is legal. It is an abuse of the FF&C cause to essentially give a state the power to set policy for the nation, especially when many states ban SSM at the level of their state constitutions.

My first observation is those who don't like SSM seem intent to salvage the ability to build a wall around states have not SSM.

I don't see the FF&C clause as violating any state's Constitutionally designated rights but rather extending an individual's rights across the nation. If an individual has the right to marry the same sex in one state then he has the right to do so in any state. We are the United States, not the allied states or the confederation of states.

When it comes to States that have 'traditional marriage' or bans on same sex marriage in their Constitutions, I believe they are using a leaky bucket. Has any one of the state constitutional amendments gone through the Supreme Court for a ruling? The legislature can pass damn near any law but it must pass Constitutional muster all the way up. Best I can find is NO state constitutional amendment has been ruled Constitutional.

So we have a balancing act, do individual rights supersede state rights? Does a state's right to regulate an activity have to pass Constitutional muster at the Federal level? Does the state have a right to outright ban certain individual activities the federal level says is Constitutional?

Course I have always wondered why the concealed carry crowd doesn't push the FF&C clause as well.

 

[molten_dragon]

I think the full faith and credit clause, combined with the fact that those states recognize heterosexual marriages performed in other states, means that they must also recognize homosexual marriages performed in other states. They shouldn't get to pick and choose.

 

[CanadaJohn]

With parts of DOMA recently being struck down, I'm curious as to what people think about section 2:



Defense of Marriage Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

To me, this seems to be in violation of the full Faith and Credit Clause of the US constitution Full Faith and Credit Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



So the poll Question is simple:

Does the Full Faith and Credit Clause mean that an Anti-SSM state must recognize a SSM form another state, constitutionally?

Yes, it is unconstitutional for a state to withhold recognition of a SSM as per the FFaC clause

No, it is not unconstitutional for a state to withhold recognition of a SSM as per the FFaC clause

Other/Don't know

I'm no expert, but if this is true, why wouldn't the opposite or the reverse also be true? If a state bans same sex marriage, why wouldn't then other states have to recognize the constitutionality of that state's ban?

I still haven't received an answer to my question on the other thread - if the court ruled that the federal government couldn't nullify or abrogate a state's definition of marriage, why would the court allow a state to nullify or abrogate another state's definition of marriage?

 

[AlabamaPaul]

Section 2 was not addressed in the case before the court, and no sweeping rulings were made. It appears the States are free to handle the issue as they individually see appropriate...

 

[Master PO]

Article. IV.

Section. 1.

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 or (DOMA) prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

the FFCA was created for the purpose of judgements against people,...if you committed a crime, an infraction of the law and a judgement was placed against you, you could not run to another state to escape that judgement.

 

[CanadaJohn]

I think the full faith and credit clause, combined with the fact that those states recognize heterosexual marriages performed in other states, means that they must also recognize homosexual marriages performed in other states. They shouldn't get to pick and choose.

By extension, since Colorado now has legalized the recreational use of pot does that mean that any native/citizen of Colorado has the legal right to use pot in every other state of the union irrespective of that state's laws and that other state must recognize that broader law?

 

[AlabamaPaul]

By extension, since Colorado now has legalized the recreational use of pot does that mean that any native/citizen of Colorado has the legal right to use pot in every other state of the union irrespective of that state's laws and that other state must recognize that broader law?

The same can be said relating to concealed carry permits. Some states have entered into reciprocal recognition while others are free not to do so.

Good afternoon jcj...

 

[CanadaJohn]

The same can be said relating to concealed carry permits. Some states have entered into reciprocal recognition while others are free not to do so.

Good afternoon jcj...

Good afternoon to you too V1.1 - It's an interesting discussion and I don't see the broad brush that many are taking on this ruling - to me, it seems that the court said the federal government has no authority to limit a state's definition of marriage - by extension, that says to me the federal government couldn't expand a state's definition of marriage - therefore, if the federal government can't, why would one state be able to expand another state's definition of marriage?

 

[AlabamaPaul]

Good afternoon to you too V1.1 - It's an interesting discussion and I don't see the broad brush that many are taking on this ruling - to me, it seems that the court said the federal government has no authority to limit a state's definition of marriage - by extension, that says to me the federal government couldn't expand a state's definition of marriage - therefore, if the federal government can't, why would one state be able to expand another state's definition of marriage?

It was actually a very narrow ruling dealing strictly with the issue before the court. The court did not strike any other provisions of DOMA...

 

[notquiteright]

I'm no expert, but if this is true, why wouldn't the opposite or the reverse also be true? If a state bans same sex marriage, why wouldn't then other states have to recognize the constitutionality of that state's ban?

I still haven't received an answer to my question on the other thread - if the court ruled that the federal government couldn't nullify or abrogate a state's definition of marriage, why would the court allow a state to nullify or abrogate another state's definition of marriage?

I think the problem you are having with this hinges on the concept of Constitutional. IF the ban was held to be Constitutional then you have a good argument, but alas the opposite appears to be the case.

IF is the biggest word in the English language...

HAS the court ruled the Feds can't nullify or abrogate a state's definition of marriage?

 

[CanadaJohn]

I think the problem you are having with this hinges on the concept of Constitutional. IF the ban was held to be Constitutional then you have a good argument, but alas the opposite appears to be the case.

IF is the biggest word in the English language...

HAS the court ruled the Feds can't nullify or abrogate a state's definition of marriage?

It ruled that the section of DOMA that only recognized hetersexual marriage was an unconstitutional restriction on a state's right to define marriage - that seems to me to indicate that the court felt that the definition of marriage was a state's rights issue. My point was/is - if the court feels that the definition of marriage is a state's rights issue, they could not possibly rule at another time that one state's definition of marriage takes precedence over another state's definition of marriage and force all states to accept same sex marriage if one state adopts it.

 

[ChrisL]

How about if we just let gays get married and get on with more important issues. Sounds like a plan to me.

 

[Ikari]

With parts of DOMA recently being struck down, I'm curious as to what people think about section 2:



Defense of Marriage Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

To me, this seems to be in violation of the full Faith and Credit Clause of the US constitution Full Faith and Credit Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



So the poll Question is simple:

Does the Full Faith and Credit Clause mean that an Anti-SSM state must recognize a SSM form another state, constitutionally?

Yes, it is unconstitutional for a state to withhold recognition of a SSM as per the FFaC clause

No, it is not unconstitutional for a state to withhold recognition of a SSM as per the FFaC clause

Other/Don't know

My opinion has been that the DOMA is clearly unconstitutional as it attempts to amend the Full Faith and Credit clause without actually amending the Constitution to do so.

 

[DiAnna]

I voted "don't know", because as I've stated before, I'm no constitutional scholar. I'll add that I wish it was indeed unconstitutional for states to refuse to recognize legal marriages, SSM or otherwise, from other states because if it's not, some stupid state legislature somewhere will declare that no marriages performed in [insert name of "enemy" state] will be recognized.

I'm all for States' Rights... unless they violate the people's constitutional rights, including the right of equal protection under the law.

 

[Your Star]

Yes it violates Full Faith & Credit. If someone gets married in New York, now they both receive state and federal benefits. Now if they move to say Alabama, they will no longer have their marriage recognized by the state, but it will still be recognized by the Fed(I think, we're still kind of iffy on how all this is going to work). Which clearly violates FF&C, since they would recognize a straight married couple.

The legal standing of any law that denies marriage rights to LGBT people has been seriously undermined today.

 

[notquiteright]

It ruled that the section of DOMA that only recognized hetersexual marriage was an unconstitutional restriction on a state's right to define marriage - that seems to me to indicate that the court felt that the definition of marriage was a state's rights issue. My point was/is - if the court feels that the definition of marriage is a state's rights issue, they could not possibly rule at another time that one state's definition of marriage takes precedence over another state's definition of marriage and force all states to accept same sex marriage if one state adopts it.

Or it means the FEDERAL government can't violate the 5th amendment for individuals that a state has not restricted the definition of marriage to one man, one woman. Combined with their decision to leave in place a Lower Court ruling that California's Prop 8 is unconstitutional seems to be the beginning of the end for ALL states with restrictions on marriage to just one man and one woman. It doesn't mean another state must recognize SSM of another state, it means no state can block SSM on it's own as that has been ruled unconstitutional and the Supreme Court has left that ruling intact.

California isn't being forced to accept a Maryland SS couple's marriage, it isn't allowed to block Californians from having SSM in state.

 

[Paschendale]

I have little doubt that there will be another big case dealing with this provision. FFnC was never used to enforce interracial marriage like this, however, so there's no precedent, but it is still why a heterosexual marriage is good in any state. All of this will continue until we have real constitutional scrutiny of SSM bans in general. No half measure is going to do it.

However... The Prop 8 result from the supreme court vacated the appeal to the California Supreme Court, and instructed it to deny the appeal for lack of standing. So the district court's ruling is final. That ruling established both that SSM should be protected by strict scrutiny, and that Prop 8 fails even to meet a rational basis test. While this result is not controlling in other states, it is quite formative, and any subsequent case in another state is going to have to address this, and find a way to distinguish itself, which it probably cannot do. So the issue may truly be settled already, though it will take time to move through all 50 states, and most likely will end up back at the supreme court before then.

Yes it violates Full Faith & Credit. If someone gets married in New York, now they both receive state and federal benefits. Now if they move to say Alabama, they will no longer have their marriage recognized by the state, but it will still be recognized by the Fed(I think, we're still kind of iffy on how all this is going to work). Which clearly violates FF&C, since they would recognize a straight married couple.


The legal standing of any law that denies marriage rights to LGBT people has been seriously undermined today.

Indeed. Anyone who thinks that the remaining portions of DOMA do not violate FFnC should answer the question of what in the constitution requires states to accept out of state heterosexual marriages, which they do.

 

[Gipper]

I voted "don't know", because as I've stated before, I'm no constitutional scholar. I'll add that I wish it was indeed unconstitutional for states to refuse to recognize legal marriages, SSM or otherwise, from other states because if it's not, some stupid state legislature somewhere will declare that no marriages performed in [insert name of "enemy" state] will be recognized.

I'm all for States' Rights... unless they violate the people's constitutional rights, including the right of equal protection under the law.

I don't consider this much of an issue since the federal government still picks and chooses what they want to "enforce".

If they don't recognize a weapon license, they don't need to recognize a marriage license. Liberals who argue in favor of FF&C are essentially hypocrites and partisan hacks because they like to run around and line-item and piecemeal their own Constitution for their own oppressive purposes.