Really disappointed in the Church's latest political adventure

[Robin]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

A negative ad hominem attack is the same as a personal attack. Ad hominem, however, is not the same as personal attack (though it can be depending on the type of ad hominem used). As I said earlier, in this case, listing both was redundant (though l did so because technically they are two distinct fallacies and to poke that much more fun at Archaea).

I declare Hoya the winner on this one. Next thread!

[realtall]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

He is correct. The marriage would not be recognized by California. This already happens regularly with other kinds of marriages. For example, in some states you can marry a first cousin. In others, you can't. Those states that prohibit such marriages do not recognize the marriage of first cousins, and there is no constitutional mechanism requiring them to do so (which is why a federal amendment is not only wrong, but superfluous).

I'm just a slobbering non-lawyer, but wouldn't the full faith and credit clause kick in here? Don't states have an obligation to honor each other's laws?

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by realtall

I'm just a slobbering non-lawyer, but wouldn't the full faith and credit clause kick in here? Don't states have an obligation to honor each other's laws?

Another "once again"

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

He is correct. The marriage would not be recognized by California. This already happens regularly with other kinds of marriages. For example, in some states you can marry a first cousin. In others, you can't. Those states that prohibit such marriages do not recognize the marriage of first cousins, and there is no constitutional mechanism requiring them to do so (which is why a federal amendment is not only wrong, but superfluous).

Originally Posted by homeboy

This was already addressed a couple of years ago with the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). States are not required to recognize marriages performed in other states if they don't want to.

[realtall]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

Another "once again"

Thanks but I already read that. I was asking specifically about the full faith and credit clause of the US Constitution.

Section 1 of Article 4:

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.


This somehow does not apply to marriages I guess?

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by realtall

Thanks but I already read that. I was asking specifically about the full faith and credit clause of the US Constitution.

Section 1 of Article 4:

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.


This somehow does not apply to marriages I guess?

The question is which state's laws are to be given full faith and credit. In real life it often arises that each of two states have legitimate claim to applying its law to a person. This is where conflicts of laws rules come into play.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

He is correct. The marriage would not be recognized by California. This already happens regularly with other kinds of marriages. For example, in some states you can marry a first cousin. In others, you can't. Those states that prohibit such marriages do not recognize the marriage of first cousins, and there is no constitutional mechanism requiring them to do so (which is why a federal amendment is not only wrong, but superfluous).

This was already addressed a couple of years ago with the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). States are not required to recognize marriages performed in other states if they don't want to.

Hoya has this right, though stated slightly backwards. Most states WILL recognize a marriage solemnized in another state even though it could be not solemnized in the first state UNLESS it is offensive to strong public policy. In other words, states will extend each other comity on the issue if they can. For example, Virginia will recognize a common law marriage that came into existence in Arizona even though no such marriage can arise in Virginia, but a bigamist marriage will be void ab initio. This is controlled by the idea of comity, rather than any consitutional principle as hoya says.

While it is right to say that there is no change in the full faith in credit clause jurisprudence looming, conservatives are leary about whether this might happen one day. This is not completely irrational. There was no right to an abortion for about 200 years in our conutry until suddenly there was. No amendment, no new law, just a sudden discovery of something that was apparently always there and we never knew it. So liberals, if we are paranoid, you have made us this way. :-)

The real battle front is not at the level of the fedeal constitution yet. All the action has been in state supreme courts where gays have asked the high courts in this states to find that there is a right to gay marriage in the state constitution. Remember that, so far, the federal constitution sets the floor in terms of rights but state constitutions can give more rights. One way to prevent states from doing this is the amendment.

I have no problem agreeing that we are far from having gay marriage foisted on one state by another.

After talking around it a whole bunch I think it just boils down to how important the issue is and that is totally subjective. Not allowing anyone to own a slave was important enough to enact an amendment over. Some people see this is as being light years from slavery in importance, others see it is being in the same league. There is no question as to whether it is possible, just whether it is desirable.

P.S. hoya, when Robin declares you the winner of anything it is probably time for some serious introspection.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by realtall

Thanks but I already read that. I was asking specifically about the full faith and credit clause of the US Constitution.

Section 1 of Article 4:

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.


This somehow does not apply to marriages I guess?

Full Faith and Credit is what my post was addressing. UtahDan's post is excellent on this point.

[realtall]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

The question is which state's laws are to be given full faith and credit. In real life it often arises that each of two states have legitimate claim to applying its law to a person. This is where conflicts of laws rules come into play.

Very clearly stated, SU.

Originally Posted by UtahDan

Hoya has this right, though stated slightly backwards. Most states WILL recognize a marriage solemnized in another state even though it could be not solemnized in the first state UNLESS it is offensive to strong public policy. In other words, states will extend each other comity on the issue if they can. For example, Virginia will recognize a common law marriage that came into existence in Arizona even though no such marriage can arise in Virginia, but a bigamist marriage will be void ab initio. This is controlled by the idea of comity, rather than any consitutional principle as hoya says.

Let's see if I understand this correctly: if a gay couple gets married in MA and then moves, say to South Dakota, then it is up to SD to decide whether or not the couple is really married(in that state) based upon how seriously it conflicts with public policy(aka, how pissed off the voters will get)? This is all very interesting to me.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by realtall

Very clearly stated, SU.



Let's see if I understand this correctly: if a gay couple gets married in MA and then moves, say to South Dakota, then it is up to SD to decide whether or not the couple is really married(in that state) based upon how seriously it conflicts with public policy(aka, how pissed off the voters will get)? This is all very interesting to me.

More or less. Of course, the state would have to have its policy codified somewhere. If it was in a state constitutional amendment, the presumption would be very strong that the marriage seriously violated public policy and, therefore, was void.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by realtall

Very clearly stated, SU.



Let's see if I understand this correctly: if a gay couple gets married in MA and then moves, say to South Dakota, then it is up to SD to decide whether or not the couple is really married(in that state) based upon how seriously it conflicts with public policy(aka, how pissed off the voters will get)? This is all very interesting to me.

Eactly so.