Gay marriage debate's next front? Reciprocity

Jun 28, 2013 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Manitowoc Herald Times Reporter

A legal term for one state recognizing the policy and laws of another, reciprocity will prove central in the fast-approaching debate over whether the three-dozen states with bans on same-sex marriage will have to recognize those performed elsewhere.

Comments

Showing posts 1 - 20 of37
< prev page
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“Building Better Worlds”

Since: May 13

Europa

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Jun 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

I have ALWAYS maintained that because of the "Full Faith and Credit" clause in Article IV of the U.S. Constitution, ALL states MUST legally recognize the legal acts of all other states. There are NO exceptions in that clause and there is certainly NO "GAY EXCEPTION" found anywhere in the U.S. Constitution, although our enemies would certainly like to see one there.

The last SCOTUS case I am aware of that dealt specifically with "Full Faith and Credit" clause was the General Motors case about 10 years back.
Fabulous Rainbow Kid

Alpharetta, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Jun 28, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

The hate states themselves will be hankering to get on the gay bandwagon as soon as they see gay couples filing federal married tax returns; while the hate-state gets nothing

Since: Dec 08

Toronto, ON, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Jun 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Shouldn't there already be a legal precedent for this, one way or the other. If a couple is married in one state with a lower age of consent, is the marriage legal in a state with a higher age of consent?(I don't know, I'm really asking.)

“Building Better Worlds”

Since: May 13

Europa

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Jun 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

JohnInToronto wrote:
Shouldn't there already be a legal precedent for this, one way or the other. If a couple is married in one state with a lower age of consent, is the marriage legal in a state with a higher age of consent?(I don't know, I'm really asking.)
Probably not, because until now, nobody ever really gave much thought to challenging marriages in court base on age, or consanguinity. The closest thing I can remember is a case where a New York City Police officer, age about 35 if I remember correctly, ran off to another state (I think Ohio), and married a 14 year old girl there.

There were all sorts of dire legal consequences that were promised to him by The City Of New York, and The State of New York, including loss of his job as a police officer, and indictment by The State Of New York. But after the initial publicity died down, the city and state announced that while what he did was absolutely illegal in New York, since the marriage was legal in Ohio, the state and city could not legally take any action at all against him. I never heard anything about the happily married couple after that.

Except for bigamy and polygamy, and too young an age, can anyone cite a case where the legality of a marriage was challenged on suspect grounds ?

“Building Better Worlds”

Since: May 13

Europa

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Jun 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Also, remember that after Loving v. Virginia, some states swore that thwy would not recognize the SCOTUS decison, and would not legally recognize interracial marriages performed outside of their states, but ultimately they were forced to accept them and legally recognize those marriages BECAUSE OF the "Full Faith and Credit" clause.

“RAINBOW POWER!”

Since: Oct 08

I Am What I Am.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Jun 28, 2013
 
Europa Report wrote:
Except for bigamy and polygamy, and too young an age, can anyone cite a case where the legality of a marriage was challenged on suspect grounds ?
Lots of marriages involving trans people have been challenged/ruled unlawful due to whether the state viewed the couple as same or opposite sex, and different criteria for determining that from one state to the next.

“Building Better Worlds”

Since: May 13

Europa

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Jun 28, 2013
 
Wolfgang E B wrote:
<quoted text>
Lots of marriages involving trans people have been challenged/ruled unlawful due to whether the state viewed the couple as same or opposite sex, and different criteria for determining that from one state to the next.
But I was speaking about a case where the marriage was ruled unlawful, other than because of gender. Any ?

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Jun 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

DOMA Section 2 remains intact, full faith and credit claims are still prohibited by it. The track record for challenges to it, dismal. Given that the Constitution gives Congress authority in that direction, we've got a seriously uphill climb in that direction. We need to force across the board federal recognition based on place of celebration, not place of residence. Once we have that, we have every last amendment by the balls on an equal protection claim.

“Equality First”

Since: Jan 09

St. Louis, MO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Jun 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Rick in Kansas wrote:
DOMA Section 2 remains intact, full faith and credit claims are still prohibited by it. The track record for challenges to it, dismal. Given that the Constitution gives Congress authority in that direction, we've got a seriously uphill climb in that direction. We need to force across the board federal recognition based on place of celebration, not place of residence. Once we have that, we have every last amendment by the balls on an equal protection claim.
Living in Missouri, a non Marriage Equality state, if we get married in Iowas and return to Missouri I know we can't file jointly with the state, but how about the Federal?

“Building Better Worlds”

Since: May 13

Europa

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Jun 28, 2013
 
Rick in Kansas wrote:
DOMA Section 2 remains intact, full faith and credit claims are still prohibited by it. The track record for challenges to it, dismal. Given that the Constitution gives Congress authority in that direction, we've got a seriously uphill climb in that direction. We need to force across the board federal recognition based on place of celebration, not place of residence. Once we have that, we have every last amendment by the balls on an equal protection claim.
As you will know a law CANNOT supersede a U.S. constitutional provision. Section 2 is OBVIOUSLY unconstitutional as it is in direct opposition to Article IV. You're not now forgetting the "Supremacy Clause" are you ?!

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
Jun 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

RalphB wrote:
Living in Missouri, a non Marriage Equality state, if we get married in Iowas and return to Missouri I know we can't file jointly with the state, but how about the Federal?
it hasn't all been sorted out yet. From what I've been reading, different parts of the government have different standards for marriage recognition. Some based on place of celebration, others based on place of residence. In some places the place of residence standard is carved into law and will take Congress to change and in others, it's simply a rewrite of policy. I can't recall which parts have the place of residence standard off the top of my head, but I do remember that it's some of the biggies. I'm thinking the IRS is based on place of celebration, because it's an agency where you aren't using your state of residence as an intermediary. But don't quote me. I've only seen this in bits and pieces, I have yet to see an article entirely devoted to where all the landmines are buried.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
Jun 28, 2013
 
Europa Report wrote:
<quoted text>
As you will know a law CANNOT supersede a U.S. constitutional provision. Section 2 is OBVIOUSLY unconstitutional as it is in direct opposition to Article IV. You're not now forgetting the "Supremacy Clause" are you ?!
And yet, none of the cases against Section 2's limitations have been ultimately successful. The best, the Citizens for Equal Protection case, got slapped down so seriously at the appeal level, they dropped it, none of the others even made it that far, most never even were heard.

I'm not forgetting the Supremacy Clause, but you seem to be forgetting the second sentence of the full faith clause,

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.

What it means in plain English has yet to be fully sorted out, but thus far it has decisively meant that Congress gets away with Section 2.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
Jun 29, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Europa Report wrote:
I have ALWAYS maintained that because of the "Full Faith and Credit" clause in Article IV of the U.S. Constitution, ALL states MUST legally recognize the legal acts of all other states. There are NO exceptions in that clause and there is certainly NO "GAY EXCEPTION" found anywhere in the U.S. Constitution, although our enemies would certainly like to see one there.
The last SCOTUS case I am aware of that dealt specifically with "Full Faith and Credit" clause was the General Motors case about 10 years back.
The FF&C clause doesn't apply to marriages.
http://www.law.yale.edu/news/4174.htm

Since: Mar 07

The entire US of A

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14
Jun 29, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
The FF&C clause doesn't apply to marriages.
http://www.law.yale.edu/news/4174.htm
Isn't this just an essay? And opinion piece? Please provide links to the various court rulings on the subject.

Thanks.
guest9876

Albuquerque, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15
Jun 29, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Europa Report wrote:
NO "GAY EXCEPTION" found anywhere in the U.S. Constitution
.
there is also NO GAY preference in that document either to defend their 'special' protected species status they enjoy.

“Equality First”

Since: Jan 09

St. Louis, MO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16
Jun 29, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>it hasn't all been sorted out yet. From what I've been reading, different parts of the government have different standards for marriage recognition. Some based on place of celebration, others based on place of residence. In some places the place of residence standard is carved into law and will take Congress to change and in others, it's simply a rewrite of policy. I can't recall which parts have the place of residence standard off the top of my head, but I do remember that it's some of the biggies. I'm thinking the IRS is based on place of celebration, because it's an agency where you aren't using your state of residence as an intermediary. But don't quote me. I've only seen this in bits and pieces, I have yet to see an article entirely devoted to where all the landmines are buried.
Surprisingly enough, I just read an article in the newspaper this morning that says pretty much the exact same thing. I guess we will have to wait until they come out with some guidelines. But I sincerely hope your are correct about the place of celebration, as to residence. Thanks for the reply.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17
Jun 29, 2013
 
Quest wrote:
Isn't this just an essay? And opinion piece? Please provide links to the various court rulings on the subject.
Thanks.
I'm unaware of any case in federal courts relating to marriage recognition. There are a slew regarding divorces, but none when it comes to marriage. FF&C didn't even rate a mention in the Loving case, one which screamed that it should. Marriage recognition is an issue that usually gets sorted out in state courts, because the states almost always fall back on the precedent from New York state courts in the Mays estate case. Except in instances where one or both parties was breaking the law of their home state by crossing into another to marry, if it was legal when it happened, a marriage remains legal if it moves, no matter how weird.
dorky

Cherryville, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18
Jun 29, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Fabulous Rainbow Kid wrote:
The hate states themselves will be hankering to get on the gay bandwagon as soon as they see gay couples filing federal married tax returns; while the hate-state gets nothing
YOU ARE SO RIGHT ABOUT THIS ONE AND THEY WILL GET TO CLAIM THEIR CHILDREN AS WELL. TO THIS I MUST STATE; THOSE OF US THAT HAVE ANIMALS SHOULD BE ABLE TO CLAIM THEM AS WELL, BECAUSE LOOK WHAT YOU PEOPLE THAT ARE GAY DO; GO GET PREGNANT AND HAVE THE MAXIMUM CHILDREN TO CLAIM AT YEAR END:(women only). IF THAT ISN'T ENOUGH, YOU DON'T WORK AND THEN LET YOUR STATE PAY ALL EXPENSES FOR ALL YOUR CHILDREN; BENEFITS FROM MEDICARE FOR WOMEN WITH CHILDREN AND THINK ABOUT THIS, THE TAX PAYERS JUST MIGHT BE PAYING FOR YOUR WHOLE FAMILY OF 10 CHILDREN AND TWO WOMEN. OUR GOVERNMENT HAS OPENED UP A CAN OF WORMS. THEY WILL BE SORRY THEY EVER DID THIS ON DOWN THE ROAD.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19
Jun 29, 2013
 
RalphB wrote:
Surprisingly enough, I just read an article in the newspaper this morning that says pretty much the exact same thing. I guess we will have to wait until they come out with some guidelines. But I sincerely hope your are correct about the place of celebration, as to residence. Thanks for the reply.
You're welcome. I've been talking this over with my lawyer since you brought it up. The biggest problems lie in the agencies and programs where the states are the intermediary and a couple isn't directly dealing with the feds. The place of residence booby trap was planted in welfare and any other program where the states get to determine your eligibility. The programs that the feds administer should be fairly safe.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20
Jun 29, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

dorky wrote:
<quoted text>
YOU ARE SO RIGHT ABOUT THIS ONE AND THEY WILL GET TO CLAIM THEIR CHILDREN AS WELL. TO THIS I MUST STATE; THOSE OF US THAT HAVE ANIMALS SHOULD BE ABLE TO CLAIM THEM AS WELL, BECAUSE LOOK WHAT YOU PEOPLE THAT ARE GAY DO; GO GET PREGNANT AND HAVE THE MAXIMUM CHILDREN TO CLAIM AT YEAR END:(women only). IF THAT ISN'T ENOUGH, YOU DON'T WORK AND THEN LET YOUR STATE PAY ALL EXPENSES FOR ALL YOUR CHILDREN; BENEFITS FROM MEDICARE FOR WOMEN WITH CHILDREN AND THINK ABOUT THIS, THE TAX PAYERS JUST MIGHT BE PAYING FOR YOUR WHOLE FAMILY OF 10 CHILDREN AND TWO WOMEN. OUR GOVERNMENT HAS OPENED UP A CAN OF WORMS. THEY WILL BE SORRY THEY EVER DID THIS ON DOWN THE ROAD.
i'm sorry, you must be confusing homosexuals with the hillbillies you call your relatives.

your Caps Lock key appears to be engaged. to disengage it, power your computer down and await further instructions on the screen...

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 1 - 20 of37
< prev page
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••
•••
•••