With House OK, Hawaii Poised To Legalize Gay Marriage

Nov 9, 2013 Full story: WGBH 31

Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie has indicated he will sign the bill, which was just approved by the House.

Full Story
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

“SCOTUS will Rule in June for”

Since: Aug 08

MARRIAGE EQUALITY:-)

#1 Nov 9, 2013
Again....Congratulations to the State of Hawaii for FINALLY fixing the mistake it made 20 years ago!!!

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#2 Nov 9, 2013
Assuming Hawaii & Illinois grant us marriage equality before the year is out, I wonder how long it will be before SCOTUS will accept a case concerning other states' refusals to legally recognize the validity of these out of state marriages.

I believe FFC applies, and I believe that marriage is one of the main reasons that clause was written by the Founders.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#3 Nov 9, 2013
Fa-Foxy wrote:
Assuming Hawaii & Illinois grant us marriage equality before the year is out, I wonder how long it will be before SCOTUS will accept a case concerning other states' refusals to legally recognize the validity of these out of state marriages.
I believe FFC applies, and I believe that marriage is one of the main reasons that clause was written by the Founders.
And yet the FFC has NEVER been used to force one state to recognize the marriages from another state.

Seems kinda odd if that's the main reason the clause was written...

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#4 Nov 9, 2013
Up next- New Mexico.

They should release their ruling before the end of the year.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#5 Nov 9, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
And yet the FFC has NEVER been used to force one state to recognize the marriages from another state.
Seems kinda odd if that's the main reason the clause was written...
That's because, to the best of my knowledge, no state has ever refused to legally recognize the legal marriages performed in other states. With the sole exception of inter-racial marriages, and look what SCOTUS said about that in Loving v. Virginia.

Furthermore, that clause contains NO EXCEPTIONS. ALL ACTS of other states must be legally recognized by all the states.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#6 Nov 10, 2013
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
That's because, to the best of my knowledge, no state has ever refused to legally recognize the legal marriages performed in other states. With the sole exception of inter-racial marriages, and look what SCOTUS said about that in Loving v. Virginia.
Furthermore, that clause contains NO EXCEPTIONS. ALL ACTS of other states must be legally recognized by all the states.
Wrong yet again.

Inter-racial marriages was a BIG exception, but certainly not the SOLE exception as you claim. States refused to recognized marriages between first cousins or underage kids legally performed in other states as well.

YES, look at what the SCOTUS said in Loving v Virginia; that decision was based on due process & equal opportunity, NOT the Full Faith & Credit.

Obviously the FFC wasn't written with marriages primarily in mind, which is why it has NEVER been used to enforce marriage contracts across state lines. NEVER.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#7 Nov 10, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong yet again.
Inter-racial marriages was a BIG exception, but certainly not the SOLE exception as you claim. States refused to recognized marriages between first cousins or underage kids legally performed in other states as well.
YES, look at what the SCOTUS said in Loving v Virginia; that decision was based on due process & equal opportunity, NOT the Full Faith & Credit.
Obviously the FFC wasn't written with marriages primarily in mind, which is why it has NEVER been used to enforce marriage contracts across state lines. NEVER.
No. I'm RIGHT as usual. Because I am ALWAYS Fair. And Balanced.

:)

What you say is untrue. Name a single case where a state wouldn't recognize a marriage from another state because of age or consanguinity.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#8 Nov 10, 2013
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
No. I'm RIGHT as usual. Because I am ALWAYS Fair. And Balanced.
:)
What you say is untrue. Name a single case where a state wouldn't recognize a marriage from another state because of age or consanguinity.
Kentucky law CURRENTLY bans recognizing marriages of first cousins performed elsewhere.

Name a single case where the FFC was used to force a state to recognize a marriage performed out of state.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#9 Nov 10, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Kentucky law CURRENTLY bans recognizing marriages of first cousins performed elsewhere.
Name a single case where the FFC was used to force a state to recognize a marriage performed out of state.
While Kentucky law may say that, it is obviously unconstitutional if it does. FFC contains no exceptions. Or are you saying a state can make up any exception they wish to FFC ?

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#10 Nov 10, 2013
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
While Kentucky law may say that, it is obviously unconstitutional if it does. FFC contains no exceptions. Or are you saying a state can make up any exception they wish to FFC ?
I'm saying the FFC has NEVER been used to force one state to recognize marriages from another state.

NEVER.

You are extremely confused as to the intent of the FFC. I was never intended to force every state to have the same state laws.

The primary reason for the FFC was to ensure court judgments & judicial proceedings from one state were enforced in another; to prevent someone from escaping justice just by crossing state lines.

The SCOTUS has repeatedly recognized a public policy exception when rulings in one state contravene public policy laws in another state.

Scream & holler all you want, but FFC simply doesn't apply to marriage laws.

“SCOTUS will Rule in June for”

Since: Aug 08

MARRIAGE EQUALITY:-)

#11 Nov 10, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Kentucky law CURRENTLY bans recognizing marriages of first cousins performed elsewhere.
Name a single case where the FFC was used to force a state to recognize a marriage performed out of state.
There is a current case from Kentucky doing just that......challenging the FFC. The couple has a Civil Union/Marriage from Vermont.

One part of the couple is being tried for murder and the AG or is it DA is trying to force her wife into testifying against her.......it will be interesting to see how it turns out!!!

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#12 Nov 10, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
There is a current case from Kentucky doing just that......challenging the FFC. The couple has a Civil Union/Marriage from Vermont.
One part of the couple is being tried for murder and the AG or is it DA is trying to force her wife into testifying against her.......it will be interesting to see how it turns out!!!
I doubt it will be successful; at least not under FFC. They may win under due process or equal protection, but not FFC. The couple wasn't even married; they only had a civil union. Even if Kentucky were forced to recognize their civil union as a civil union, it STILL doesn't mean they would have spousal privilege in Kentucky because that is reserved specially for married spouses.

I realize that sounds convoluted & splitting hairs, but that's why the FFC is not a very good vehicle for challenging state marriage bans. We're much more likely to be successful using due process & equal protection.
Cordwainer Trout

Elizabethtown, KY

#13 Nov 10, 2013
Listen very carefully to the sodomite's conversations. They are interested only in how they can pervert common and other longstanding law and tradition to further sodomy as a commonality in a country they are intent on destroying like all sociopaths. It doesn't ultimately have anything to do with rights; it has to do with destruction.

“SCOTUS will Rule in June for”

Since: Aug 08

MARRIAGE EQUALITY:-)

#14 Nov 10, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
I doubt it will be successful; at least not under FFC. They may win under due process or equal protection, but not FFC. The couple wasn't even married; they only had a civil union. Even if Kentucky were forced to recognize their civil union as a civil union, it STILL doesn't mean they would have spousal privilege in Kentucky because that is reserved specially for married spouses.
I realize that sounds convoluted & splitting hairs, but that's why the FFC is not a very good vehicle for challenging state marriage bans. We're much more likely to be successful using due process & equal protection.
Well, maybe and maybe not.....we will have to see how it plays out.......I just know that this is actually a challenge to the FFC......and if the FFC is used for enforcing other legal documents, then it should apply to Marriages as well!!!

I think it is an easier challenge to win than say suing to overturn Section 2 of DOMA.....but that's just my opinion!!!

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#15 Nov 10, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm saying the FFC has NEVER been used to force one state to recognize marriages from another state.
NEVER.
You are extremely confused as to the intent of the FFC. I was never intended to force every state to have the same state laws.
The primary reason for the FFC was to ensure court judgments & judicial proceedings from one state were enforced in another; to prevent someone from escaping justice just by crossing state lines.
The SCOTUS has repeatedly recognized a public policy exception when rulings in one state contravene public policy laws in another state.
Scream & holler all you want, but FFC simply doesn't apply to marriage laws.
Yes, it does. See Loving v. Virginia (1967) as an example.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#16 Nov 10, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, maybe and maybe not.....we will have to see how it plays out.......I just know that this is actually a challenge to the FFC......and if the FFC is used for enforcing other legal documents, then it should apply to Marriages as well!!!
I think it is an easier challenge to win than say suing to overturn Section 2 of DOMA.....but that's just my opinion!!!
The FFC is actually used to ensure evidence in one state court is admitted as evidence in another state court.

It's not used to enforce other state laws.

It's not even used to enforce judgments from another state.

It's just to ensure the judgments from another state are afforded to be introduced as evidence; not that the final judgments have to be in agreement.

It would be a first, which would go against numerous SCOTUS precedent. For that reason alone I think it would be HARDER than winning on a due process and/or equal protection claim which has SCOTUS precedent in its favor.

But you never know; anything can happen.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#17 Nov 10, 2013
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, it does. See Loving v. Virginia (1967) as an example.
Loving v Virginia was NOT decided on FFC grounds, but rather due process & equal protection.

“SCOTUS will Rule in June for”

Since: Aug 08

MARRIAGE EQUALITY:-)

#18 Nov 10, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
The FFC is actually used to ensure evidence in one state court is admitted as evidence in another state court.
It's not used to enforce other state laws.
It's not even used to enforce judgments from another state.
It's just to ensure the judgments from another state are afforded to be introduced as evidence; not that the final judgments have to be in agreement.
It would be a first, which would go against numerous SCOTUS precedent. For that reason alone I think it would be HARDER than winning on a due process and/or equal protection claim which has SCOTUS precedent in its favor.
But you never know; anything can happen.
I think we have different thoughts on how the FFC really works......I believe that certain issues MUST be recognized going from one state to another and I see that like with regards to the Jenkins vs Miller child custody case that started in Vermont and continued in Virginia.......and if that is NOT what the FFC is about.....then maybe we need to re-think it's purpose!!!

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#19 Nov 10, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
I think we have different thoughts on how the FFC really works......I believe that certain issues MUST be recognized going from one state to another and I see that like with regards to the Jenkins vs Miller child custody case that started in Vermont and continued in Virginia.......and if that is NOT what the FFC is about.....then maybe we need to re-think it's purpose!!!
Actually that case is a good example of the purpose of the FFC- a judgment from one court recognized as evidence in another court. It didn't automatically mean Virginia had to follow Vermont custody law or even affirm the ruling of the Vermont court- only that the judgment from Vermont was eligible to be entered into evidence and therefore CONSIDERED in the final judgment in Virginia. The Virginia Supreme Court in 2006 affirmed Miller's custody but also the visitation rights for Jenkins based on the Vermont family court ruling.

So the FFC worked as intended in that case.

There is indeed a lot of confusion over the FFC, even amongst legal "experts". The intent was never to force one state to recognize the laws of another state. Remember, they were very big on state's rights when the constitution was written; the federal govt was often seen as being secondary to the states.

“SCOTUS will Rule in June for”

Since: Aug 08

MARRIAGE EQUALITY:-)

#20 Nov 10, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually that case is a good example of the purpose of the FFC- a judgment from one court recognized as evidence in another court. It didn't automatically mean Virginia had to follow Vermont custody law or even affirm the ruling of the Vermont court- only that the judgment from Vermont was eligible to be entered into evidence and therefore CONSIDERED in the final judgment in Virginia. The Virginia Supreme Court in 2006 affirmed Miller's custody but also the visitation rights for Jenkins based on the Vermont family court ruling.
So the FFC worked as intended in that case.
There is indeed a lot of confusion over the FFC, even amongst legal "experts". The intent was never to force one state to recognize the laws of another state. Remember, they were very big on state's rights when the constitution was written; the federal govt was often seen as being secondary to the states.
Actually it DIDN'T work out if you remember correctly.......Janet Jenkins sits in her home in Vermont hoping to see her daughter again.....and the Courts from Virginia ACTUALLY agreed with the Courts in Vermont......and BOTH failed to prevent Lisa Miller from fleeing the Country.....sorry, but I believe that the FFC is in place because it makes a legal Court Judgment from one state legal and viable in another!!!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
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.

Neil Abercrombie Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
VIDEO: Hawaii volcano lava prompts evacuation c... Dec '14 hut 3
Abercrombie content as he leaves office Dec '14 Mike 14
Schatz, Cavasso vie for Senate seat Nov '14 Joe Balls 1
Hawaii officials warn of possible lava evacuation Oct '14 Understatement 4
A look at the Hawaii volcano sending lava towar... Sep '14 Adrian Godsafe MSc 2
Schatz wins over voters in tough US Senate primary (Aug '14) Aug '14 Le Jimbo 5
Former Lt. Gov. Aiona wins GOP governor primary (Aug '14) Aug '14 Joe Balls 14
More from around the web