Governor, attorney general: S.C. not ...

Governor, attorney general: S.C. not required to honor gay marriages

There are 65 comments on the The State story from Nov 16, 2013, titled Governor, attorney general: S.C. not required to honor gay marriages. In it, The State reports that:

Attorneys for Gov. Nikki Haley and Attorney General Alan Wilson said in court papers filed this week that the state of South Carolina doesn't have to recognize gay marriages performed legally in other states and the nation's capital.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The State.

First Prev
of 4
Next Last

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#1 Nov 16, 2013
The State Of South Caroline, and ALL states MUST legally recognize the marriages performed out of state because of the U.S. Constitution's "full faith and credit" clause. This clause contains NO EXCEPTIONS.

People who are opposed to equal marriage rights for LGBT people, and the legal recognition of their marriages often cite "religious and moral grounds" for doing so.

Using that same argument, supposing a state, citing "religious and moral grounds", refused to legally recognize a str8 couple's divorce performed in another state ? Supposing you wound up with a patchwork of states that legally recognized the divorces of some states, but not others ? Obviously, legal chaos results.

This is one example of exactly the legal chaos that the "full faith and credit" clause was specifically written to prevent.

And once, again, notice that this clause contains NO EXCEPTIONS.

States do NOT get to pick and choose which legal acts of another state to recognize, and which acts they are free to ignore. The "full faith and credit" clause of the U.S. Constitution prohibits this.
Lenny

Sweden

#2 Nov 16, 2013
Way to go South Carolina!!!

I applaud Nikki Haley and Alan Wilson!!!

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#3 Nov 16, 2013
Lenny wrote:
Way to go South Carolina!!!
I applaud Nikki Haley and Alan Wilson!!!
From Cyprus ?! What effect does Nikki Haley or Alan Wilson have on anybody in Cyprus ?!

“Equality First”

Since: Jan 09

Location hidden

#4 Nov 16, 2013
Fa-Foxy wrote:
The State Of South Caroline, and ALL states MUST legally recognize the marriages performed out of state because of the U.S. Constitution's "full faith and credit" clause. This clause contains NO EXCEPTIONS.
People who are opposed to equal marriage rights for LGBT people, and the legal recognition of their marriages often cite "religious and moral grounds" for doing so.
Using that same argument, supposing a state, citing "religious and moral grounds", refused to legally recognize a str8 couple's divorce performed in another state ? Supposing you wound up with a patchwork of states that legally recognized the divorces of some states, but not others ? Obviously, legal chaos results.
This is one example of exactly the legal chaos that the "full faith and credit" clause was specifically written to prevent.
And once, again, notice that this clause contains NO EXCEPTIONS.
States do NOT get to pick and choose which legal acts of another state to recognize, and which acts they are free to ignore. The "full faith and credit" clause of the U.S. Constitution prohibits this.
Every so often you come up with a post that is both directly geared to the article and insightful at the same time. This is one of those.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#5 Nov 16, 2013
RalphB wrote:
<quoted text>
Every so often you come up with a post that is both directly geared to the article and insightful at the same time. This is one of those.
Not only that, as usual, it was Fair. And Balanced.:)

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#6 Nov 16, 2013

“Equality First”

Since: Jan 09

Location hidden

#7 Nov 16, 2013
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
Not only that, as usual, it was Fair. And Balanced.:)
Don't get carried away.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#8 Nov 16, 2013
RalphB wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't get carried away.
Te only ones who need to be carried away are the liberals (to the loony bin).
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#9 Nov 16, 2013
Fa-Foxy wrote:
The State Of South Caroline, and ALL states MUST legally recognize the marriages performed out of state because of the U.S. Constitution's "full faith and credit" clause. This clause contains NO EXCEPTIONS.
False. The full faith and credit" clause doesn't apply to licenses. I can see where gays would like it to, but it doesn't.

http://www.law.yale.edu/news/4174.htm

Add to that Section 2 of the defense of marriage act.
Section 2. Powers reserved to the states. 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.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#10 Nov 16, 2013
it looks like we are really finally going to get a Full Faith and Credit argument going!

Yippeee!

Next, do you think can we retrieve the IXth Amendment from the dead-letter pile?

What a great day THAT would be!

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#11 Nov 16, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
False. The full faith and credit" clause doesn't apply to licenses. I can see where gays would like it to, but it doesn't.
http://www.law.yale.edu/news/4174.htm
Add to that Section 2 of the defense of marriage act.
Section 2. Powers reserved to the states. 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.
Until 1967, certain states said they didn't have to recognize the legal marriages of inter-racial couples. Are you saying they still don't have to do so ?

What's the legal difference between an inter-racial married couple, and a same-gender married couple ? The fact that you, and others just "don't like it", is to a basis for denying that person, or couple, their legal and constitutional RIGHTS.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#12 Nov 16, 2013
keyboarding correction: should have read: "The fact that you, and others, just "don't like it", is NOT a basis for denying that person, or couple, their legal and constitutional RIGHTS."
Rainbow Kid

Alpharetta, GA

#13 Nov 16, 2013
Lenny wrote:
Way to go South Carolina!!!
I applaud Nikki Haley and Alan Wilson!!!
They are indeed heroes
.
This may very well be the breakthrough to equality in all 50 states that we have been working so hard to achieve
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#14 Nov 16, 2013
Fa-Foxy wrote:
What's the legal difference between an inter-racial married couple, and a same-gender married couple ?
That depends. Are you talking straight or gay interracial couples?
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#15 Nov 16, 2013
Fa-Foxy wrote:
keyboarding correction: should have read: "The fact that you, and others, just "don't like it", is NOT a basis for denying that person, or couple, their legal and constitutional RIGHTS."
The constitution doesn't address marriage, its regulation is a function of the states.
Sir Andrew

Honolulu, HI

#16 Nov 16, 2013
Sorry, Wondering, but you are as wrong as is possible in this matter. Article IV of the Constitution trumps any contrary language in any law, including DOMA. I think it's funny that you are fighting this so hard with so little viable ammunition. It's also interesting that you are even on this gay site. Isn't there an elementary school nearby where you could be beating up the little boys who want to jump rope instead of play football?

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#17 Nov 16, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
The constitution doesn't address marriage, its regulation is a function of the states.
Exactly. And if a state wishes to legalize same-sex marriages, that is the RIGHT of that state. But in so doing, according to the U.S. Constitution's "Full Faith and Credit" clause, the U.S. Constitution REQUIRES that ALL marriages be legally recognized in ALL states, their own marriage laws notwithstanding. There are NO exceptions in that clause.

The closest analogy I can think of is the marriage of first cousins. About half the states permit it and about half the states specifically prohibit it by law. Yet ALL states legally recognize the marriages of first cousins performed in others states or other countries, their own laws to the contrary notwithstanding.

(If you nominate me to SCOTUS, I will rule with an Iron Scepter. But ALWAYS be Fair. And Balanced.:))
Rick not in Kansas yet

Salina, KS

#18 Nov 16, 2013
One more time for those who refuse to take notes. Although FF&C has been applied in the recognition of the validity of a divorce, it has never been applied by the federal courts in the recognition of the validity of a marriage as a federal matter. Marriages were recognized from state to state based on comity not law. If you were legal when and where you were hitched, you're still hitched, usually even if it wouldn't have been legal where you moved. It's actually rare when the state gets involved in establishing the validity of a marriage from somewhere else and it's almost always in the cases of bizarre family feuds.

Since: Jan 08

Bangkok, Thailand

#19 Nov 16, 2013
The time WILL come when SC and other neanderthal states will have to both recognize and legalize SSM just like they had to recognize that African Americans were actually Americans and mixed race marriages were legal. The longer they postpone the inevitable the harder it will be, not that I'll have any sympathy for them when that day comes.

It would be nice if theocratists Scalia and Thomas could be impeached and the SSM conclusion could be reached sooner, simpler, and cheaper than this state by state nonsense we're having to go through.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#20 Nov 17, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
False. The full faith and credit" clause doesn't apply to licenses. I can see where gays would like it to, but it doesn't.
http://www.law.yale.edu/news/4174.htm
Add to that Section 2 of the defense of marriage act.
Section 2. Powers reserved to the states. 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.
Now about voting on civil rights:
SCOTUS Majority opinion:

West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette 1943

"The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 4
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form 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.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Mormon church backs Utah LGBT anti-discriminati... (Mar '15) 3 min Zorri 7,278
News Kentucky clerk rejects couples again: 'They don... 5 min Prophet 5
News Supreme Court rules against clerk in gay marria... 8 min Just sayin 28
News Same-sex marriage fight turns to clerk who refu... 10 min Frankie Rizzo 3,210
News Kentucky clerk defies order, refuses to issue s... 10 min Old Kentuckin 490
News Questions and Answers about Kentucky's gay marr... 13 min Cordwainer Trout 15
News Kentucky clerk, citing God, defies courts on ga... 15 min Prophet 11
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 1 hr tbird19482 25,876
News Supreme Court rules against clerk in gay marria... 2 hr too lazy to log in 57
News Court: Baker who refused gay wedding cake can't... 2 hr WasteWater 1,243
More from around the web