And welcome to the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the US Constitution:
If Massachusetts says Bill and Bob are married, then California, Hawaii, and Kansas have to treat that marriages as no less valid than any marriage between a man and a woman in their state.Article IV - The States
Section 1 - Each State to Honor all others
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.
To permit any state to treat any other state's marriage differently based on the sex of the pair requires a Constitutional amendment.
It’s about legal vs. tradition.
The state would deal with the civil (contractual, testamentary, and mandatory) aspects only.
The marriage part is only customary, traditional or religious and is up the people involved, their families and their community (be it church or whatever group).
'The whole universe is going to die!'
"I am appalled that somebody who is the nominee...would take that kind of position"
"A court took away a presidency"
"...the brother of a man running for president was the governor of the state..."
It's horrifying because Trump is blunt instead of making overt implications.
You're saying the state shouldn't recognize what has been ruled to be a Fundamental Right, that the state should leave this right to private entities and not protect it.
What other rights do you suppose the State shouldn't protect?
Last edited by Jerry; 07-09-10 at 10:21 AM.