- Joined
- Jun 19, 2013
- Messages
- 10,695
- Reaction score
- 11,527
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
The constitution requires states to recognize civil marriages performed in other states.
United States Constitution
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 prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
That is what some believe, but that hasn't been quite nailed down yet by the SCOTUS. The Constitution requires that all States honor the public acts of other States, however the Constitution also grants Congress the power to determine the effect thereof of those public acts between the various states. In 1996 Congress passed the DOMA which had two parts. Section 2 specifically granted the States the power to reject Civil Marriages from other states based on the gender composition of the married couple while Section 3 defined that the Federal government would usurp the power to define marriage for Federal purposes and only recognize certain legal Civil Marriages entered into under State law.
Recently the SCOTUS struck down Section 3 and returned us back to the pre-1996 situation where Civil Marriages were recognized if valid in their state of origin. However Section 2 (the determination of the "effect thereof" between the States) was not part of the decision and therefore is still valid.
>>>>
Legislation can't grant powers to the state. Only the constitution can.
Legislation can't grant powers to the state. Only the constitution can.United States Constitution
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 prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
That is what some believe, but that hasn't been quite nailed down yet by the SCOTUS. The Constitution requires that all States honor the public acts of other States, however the Constitution also grants Congress the power to determine the effect thereof of those public acts between the various states. In 1996 Congress passed the DOMA which had two parts. Section 2 specifically granted the States the power to reject Civil Marriages from other states based on the gender composition of the married couple while Section 3 defined that the Federal government would usurp the power to define marriage for Federal purposes and only recognize certain legal Civil Marriages entered into under State law.
Recently the SCOTUS struck down Section 3 and returned us back to the pre-1996 situation where Civil Marriages were recognized if valid in their state of origin. However Section 2 (the determination of the "effect thereof" between the States) was not part of the decision and therefore is still valid.
I believe you're thinking of the federal, not the state. The federal Constitution already grants a ton of power to the states that the feds have presumed as their own.
However, there's one point in this issue that's been missed in this thread. How has this couple been filing their state tax for the past five years, they're not eligible in the state to file as married.
So, unless they are also business partners (officially) there are no assets to divide.
Whats to help? They want a divorce and they should be able to get one just like several others do in this State from various parts of the country do
there you go using facts again, dishonest and uneducted people with bigoted views don't care bout factsThey are residents of this State and legally married.
#1 - I believe Texasa doesn't have income tax. Therefore there would be no income tax forms to file.
that's not really accurate.. as Texas law doesn't consider them to be married in the first place.
Why should we Texans have to be subjected to such? We LEGALLY voted against SSM and therefore SSD.
And no I'm not sure it's legal for them to move here under that premise. It's on the same level as moving from a state where marijuana is legal to one where it's not and expecting there to be changes made in the law to conform to your habit.
It's not going to happen.
Exactly
Let the states decide (by vote) if they want to recognize filthy and deviant forms of sham/pretend marriages
Wrong. The right to marry has been recognized by the SCOTUS to be a fundamental right. There is no similar status for smoking weed. Just sayin.
At state level there is. We're talking about state's rights here.
Should your marriage be put to a majority rules vote?
What if we put inter-racial marriage to a popular vote?
Perhaps a law that says only Christians can marry....would that be ok to put to a popular vote?
Wrong. The right to marry has been recognized by the SCOTUS to be a fundamental right. There is no similar status for smoking weed. Just sayin.
Being gay is not a race. Homosexuality is not genetic. There is no gay gene.
Interracial marriage does not change the definition of marriage from man + woman to man + ? or woman + ?
You're trotting out an old, tired, cliche and dishonest strawman
We are talking about individual rights
Being gay is not a race. Homosexuality is not genetic. There is no gay gene.
That has yet to be be proven either way. Although evidence does point to their being a genetic component. And if there isn't way care. There are plenty of things that are rights that are are a choice like religion
No gay gene = not genetic
They've studied Identical Twins and confirmed
There is a clash of morals here. Let the states decide.
At state level there is. We're talking about state's rights here.
No gay gene = not genetic
They've studied Identical Twins and confirmed
There is a clash of morals here. Let the states decide.
Meh I'm not big on statism in regards to individual rights
Sorry...but the Supremacy Clause trumps states rights when dealing with a fundamental right.
No gay gene = not genetic
They've studied Identical Twins and confirmed
There is a clash of morals here. Let the states decide.
Has nothing to do with Individual Rights.
Being gay is not a race.
Why should gays have the right to redefine marriage to whatever postmodernism definition they see fit over polygamists or pedophiles? Yea I know, we'll never go there right?
There is no right for gays to be able to marry in The Constitution. The
Founders never conceived of such a deviant perversion of marriage.
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?