- Joined
- Jul 28, 2008
- Messages
- 45,596
- Reaction score
- 22,536
- Location
- Everywhere and nowhere
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
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.
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.
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
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.
http://www.legis.state.la.us/lss/lss.asp?doc=286906§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.
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.
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.
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 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?
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?
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?
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
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.
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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?