- Joined
- Jun 19, 2013
- Messages
- 10,530
- Reaction score
- 11,260
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Re: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional Sho
That is what some believe, but that hasn't been quite nailed down yet by the SCOTUS. The Constitution requires that all States honor the public acts of other States, however the Constitution also grants Congress the power to determine the effect thereof of those public acts between the various states. In 1996 Congress passed the DOMA which had two parts. Section 2 specifically granted the States the power to reject Civil Marriages from other states based on the gender composition of the married couple while Section 3 defined that the Federal government would usurp the power to define marriage for Federal purposes and only recognize certain legal Civil Marriages entered into under State law.
Recently the SCOTUS struck down Section 3 and returned us back to the pre-1996 situation where Civil Marriages were recognized if valid in their state of origin. However Section 2 (the determination of the "effect thereof" between the States) was not part of the decision and therefore is still valid.
*****************************************************
Personally I think that Section 2 was poorly worded based on the anti-gay fever at the time. It will likely be either repealed or struck down if it gets to the SCOTUS because it is a discriminatory based on the gender classification of the couple involved. If the law had been "Civil Marriage is a power inherent in the States and no State shall be required to recognize any Civil Marriage performed outside it's jurisdiction." Then that would have been much more Constitutional. The State then would be responsible for determining the conditions it would use to recognize out of State Civil Marriages. However that is not what Congress did, they granted the States only the power to ignore same-sex Civil Marriages.
>>>>
The constitution requires states to recognize civil marriages performed in other states.
United States Constitution
Article IV: 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.
Article IV: 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.
That is what some believe, but that hasn't been quite nailed down yet by the SCOTUS. The Constitution requires that all States honor the public acts of other States, however the Constitution also grants Congress the power to determine the effect thereof of those public acts between the various states. In 1996 Congress passed the DOMA which had two parts. Section 2 specifically granted the States the power to reject Civil Marriages from other states based on the gender composition of the married couple while Section 3 defined that the Federal government would usurp the power to define marriage for Federal purposes and only recognize certain legal Civil Marriages entered into under State law.
Recently the SCOTUS struck down Section 3 and returned us back to the pre-1996 situation where Civil Marriages were recognized if valid in their state of origin. However Section 2 (the determination of the "effect thereof" between the States) was not part of the decision and therefore is still valid.
*****************************************************
Personally I think that Section 2 was poorly worded based on the anti-gay fever at the time. It will likely be either repealed or struck down if it gets to the SCOTUS because it is a discriminatory based on the gender classification of the couple involved. If the law had been "Civil Marriage is a power inherent in the States and no State shall be required to recognize any Civil Marriage performed outside it's jurisdiction." Then that would have been much more Constitutional. The State then would be responsible for determining the conditions it would use to recognize out of State Civil Marriages. However that is not what Congress did, they granted the States only the power to ignore same-sex Civil Marriages.
>>>>
Last edited: