Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But it does require that one state must recognize the "public acts, records, and judicial proceedings, of every other state."
Marriage is one of those.
I don't think you understand the full faith and credit clause.
Basically it simply states that every state must respect the public acts of another state(such as marriage). But it does not require one state to replace its own statutes(laws) with that of another state.
Lets pretend there are two states, Georgia and Massachusetts.
Lets say in Georgia the legal age to get married is 16 years old, and only to members of the opposite sex. In Massachusetts the legal age for marriage is 18 years old, and you can marry someone of any sex.
If the 16-year couple married in Georgia moved to Massachusetts, since Massachusetts has a statute that prohibits 16 year-olds from marrying, then they would not be required to recognize the marriage. If a homosexual couple moved from Massachusetts to Georgia, since Georgia has a statute that prohibits same-sex marriage, then Georgia does not have to recognize that marriage.
On the other hand if a straight couple was married in Georgia who was over the age of 18 and then moved to Massachusetts. Massachusetts must recognize that couple as married. Since the union is in line with its own statutes.
Last edited by Redshadowz; 09-22-2010 at 02:31 PM..
What has never won? If you are saying that ALL states must recognize same sex marriages from another state you are wrong. There are many states that do not recognize it.
Alabama: The State of Alabama shall not recognize as valid any marriage of parties of the same sex that occurred or was alleged to have occurred as a result of the law of any jurisdiction regardless of whether a marriage license was issued.
what the blowhard is saying is that State Legislatures can make laws to enforce discrimination against sexes or sexual orientation. I guess that he doesn't believe in the due process clause or 14th Amendment. this is no different than where he's always stood.
Full Faith & Credit should apply to same sex marriages performed in other states if the clause were applied properly. To date, this has not been challenged to the SCOTUS level. I think that the State of Mass case is set to go to SCOTUS for a ruling. Stay tuned.
OHHHHH......The Hate......The Hate....Don't posters ever tire of it....seriously!!!!! Let us Gays have our Civil Unions or whatever YOU want to call it; it's just rhetoric and semantics. For in my heart and mind I know that I am no better and no less than anyone else. All I want is to have the same benefits of marriage as you all enjoy....I've been with the same guy, an Army veteran, over 27 years now.....that's longer than most heterosexual unions and my first and only....some of you are on like your 8th marriage/union...geesh.....I only want my chance at one. You have 1,158 Benefits that I can NEVER get; yet I pay equal taxes for subpar rights!!!!!
Maybe it's time to concentrate on holding together your own marriages and STOP fighting me and other gays from at least sharing in this privilege(marriage/unions)....that some of you seem to take very lightly...judging by these demographic statistics.
Last edited by PITTSTON2SARASOTA; 09-22-2010 at 08:51 PM..
Can someone please tell me why the government, at any level, is involved in marriage? What does a personal relationship of any kind have to do with the government, gay or otherwise???
Full Faith & Credit should apply to same sex marriages performed in other states if the clause were applied properly. To date, this has not been challenged to the SCOTUS level. I think that the State of Mass case is set to go to SCOTUS for a ruling. Stay tuned.
You have no idea what you are talking about. The full faith and credit clause has almost everything to do with judicial rulings and the sharing of evidence from one state to another. Basically it was so people who commited a crime in one state couldn't just leave to another state.
In fact, the framers originally intended it to do far less than it even does today...
"James Madison wrote that it established a power that "may be rendered a very convenient instrument of justice, and be particularly beneficial on the borders of contiguous States."
The current interpretation basically states that all public acts are applicable in all other states, unless such act is prohibited by the state through its own statute.
"And in the case of statutes...the full faith and credit clause does not require one state to substitute for its own statute, applicable to persons and events within it, the conflicting statute of another state, even though that statute is of controlling force in the courts of the state of its enactment with respect to the same persons and events."
This is why many states have passed laws or changed their constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage. If they have a statute prohibiting same-sex marriage, then under the current interpretation of the full faith and credit clause, those marriages do not have to be recognized.
The problem is that you have a supreme court that could at any time overturn previous supreme court decisions, by creating their own interpretations of this clause.
Such as in the case of the Oklahoma adoption laws.
Lambda Legal: U. S. Court of Appeals Upholds Decision Striking Down Oklahoma (http://www.lambdalegal.org/news/pr/finstuen-victory.html - broken link)
Oklahoma already does not allow same-sex adoptions. And the amendment further stated that Oklahoma refuses to recognize adoptions between same-sex couples from other states also.
The amendment was declared unconstitutional. And if you go by the explanation of the ruling of the courts, it has basically already declared that same-sex marriages from other states would also have to be recognized.
It would be like if Vermont allowed marriage between a man and a dog and then the "couple" moved to Massachusetts. That Massachusetts would be forced to recognize such a union as legal. Or if Vermont allowed a marriage between a 30 year-old and a 10 year-old and then moved to Massachusetts, that Massachusetts must recognize such a marriage.
The idea of it is absolutely absurd.
This kind of interpretation is dangerous to the fundamentals of our decentralized government, and is a slap in the face of the original intent of the union.
But it does require that one state must recognize the "public acts, records, and judicial proceedings, of every other state."
Marriage is one of those.
"the full faith and credit clause does not require one state to substitute for its own statute, applicable to persons and events within it, the conflicting statute of another state, even though that statute is of controlling force in the courts of the state of its enactment with respect to the same persons and events"
"As of early 2004, 39 states have passed their own laws and constitutional amendments, sometimes called "mini DOMAs," which restrict marriage to opposite-sex couples. Most of these "mini DOMAs" explicitly prohibit the state from honoring same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions."
"Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia stated in his dissenting opinion to the "Lawrence v. Texas" decision that he feared application of the Full Faith and Credit Clause to the majority’s decision in that case might destroy "the structure... that has permitted a distinction to be made between heterosexual and homosexual unions." If Scalia's dissenting opinion holds true, the majority ruling could potentially negate the DOMA and create a legal situation in which all states might eventually be obliged to recognize same-sex marriages performed in Massachusetts, California, or Connecticut."
As Pittston2Sarasota said gays are denied 1,158 benefits that we do not have, and as he said we pay equal taxes for subpar rights ! Here is his post copied again.
.....I only want my chance at one. You have 1,158 Benefits that I can NEVER get; yet I pay equal taxes for subpar rights!!!!!
Maybe it's time to concentrate on holding together your own marriages and STOP fighting me and other gays from at least sharing in this privilege(marriage/unions)....that some of you seem to take very lightly...judging by these demographic statistics.
WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. ALL MEANS EVERYONE !
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Wrong again!
~~~*~~~
