View Poll Results: Does the Full Faith and Credit Clause mean that an Anti-SSM state must recognize a SS

Voters
32. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, it is unconstitutional for a state to withhold recognition of a SSM as per the FFaC clause

    16 50.00%
  • No, it is not unconstitutional for a state to withhold recognition of a SSM as per the FFaC clause

    7 21.88%
  • Other/Don't know

    9 28.13%
Page 2 of 14 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 136

Thread: SSM and the Full Faith and Credit Clause

  1. #11
    Pragmatist
    AlabamaPaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Alabama
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 11:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    8,834

    Re: SSM and the Full Faith and Credit Clause

    Section 2 was not addressed in the case before the court, and no sweeping rulings were made. It appears the States are free to handle the issue as they individually see appropriate...
    I don't often change my signature, but this was just too over the top to let anyone forget with what this country is up against...
    Quote Originally Posted by James D Hill View Post
    I am for gay marriage because it ticks off Jesus freaks and social conservatives. Gays are also good voters because the vote for my side so I fight next to them.

  2. #12
    Mixed Government advocate
    Master PO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
    Last Seen
    11-30-17 @ 01:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    31,331

    Re: SSM and the Full Faith and Credit Clause

    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 or (DOMA) prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

    the FFCA was created for the purpose of judgements against people,...if you committed a crime, an infraction of the law and a judgement was placed against you, you could not run to another state to escape that judgement.
    Last edited by Master PO; 06-26-13 at 06:12 PM.

  3. #13
    Canadian Conservative
    CanadaJohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:27 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    27,193

    Re: SSM and the Full Faith and Credit Clause

    Quote Originally Posted by molten_dragon View Post
    I think the full faith and credit clause, combined with the fact that those states recognize heterosexual marriages performed in other states, means that they must also recognize homosexual marriages performed in other states. They shouldn't get to pick and choose.
    By extension, since Colorado now has legalized the recreational use of pot does that mean that any native/citizen of Colorado has the legal right to use pot in every other state of the union irrespective of that state's laws and that other state must recognize that broader law?
    "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." William F. Buckley Jr.

  4. #14
    Pragmatist
    AlabamaPaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Alabama
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 11:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    8,834

    Re: SSM and the Full Faith and Credit Clause

    Quote Originally Posted by CanadaJohn View Post
    By extension, since Colorado now has legalized the recreational use of pot does that mean that any native/citizen of Colorado has the legal right to use pot in every other state of the union irrespective of that state's laws and that other state must recognize that broader law?
    The same can be said relating to concealed carry permits. Some states have entered into reciprocal recognition while others are free not to do so.

    Good afternoon jcj...
    I don't often change my signature, but this was just too over the top to let anyone forget with what this country is up against...
    Quote Originally Posted by James D Hill View Post
    I am for gay marriage because it ticks off Jesus freaks and social conservatives. Gays are also good voters because the vote for my side so I fight next to them.

  5. #15
    Canadian Conservative
    CanadaJohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:27 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    27,193

    Re: SSM and the Full Faith and Credit Clause

    Quote Originally Posted by AlabamaPaul View Post
    The same can be said relating to concealed carry permits. Some states have entered into reciprocal recognition while others are free not to do so.

    Good afternoon jcj...
    Good afternoon to you too V1.1 - It's an interesting discussion and I don't see the broad brush that many are taking on this ruling - to me, it seems that the court said the federal government has no authority to limit a state's definition of marriage - by extension, that says to me the federal government couldn't expand a state's definition of marriage - therefore, if the federal government can't, why would one state be able to expand another state's definition of marriage?
    "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." William F. Buckley Jr.

  6. #16
    Pragmatist
    AlabamaPaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Alabama
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 11:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    8,834

    Re: SSM and the Full Faith and Credit Clause

    Quote Originally Posted by CanadaJohn View Post
    Good afternoon to you too V1.1 - It's an interesting discussion and I don't see the broad brush that many are taking on this ruling - to me, it seems that the court said the federal government has no authority to limit a state's definition of marriage - by extension, that says to me the federal government couldn't expand a state's definition of marriage - therefore, if the federal government can't, why would one state be able to expand another state's definition of marriage?
    It was actually a very narrow ruling dealing strictly with the issue before the court. The court did not strike any other provisions of DOMA...
    I don't often change my signature, but this was just too over the top to let anyone forget with what this country is up against...
    Quote Originally Posted by James D Hill View Post
    I am for gay marriage because it ticks off Jesus freaks and social conservatives. Gays are also good voters because the vote for my side so I fight next to them.

  7. #17
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    okla-freakin-homa
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    12,626

    Re: SSM and the Full Faith and Credit Clause

    Quote Originally Posted by CanadaJohn View Post
    I'm no expert, but if this is true, why wouldn't the opposite or the reverse also be true? If a state bans same sex marriage, why wouldn't then other states have to recognize the constitutionality of that state's ban?

    I still haven't received an answer to my question on the other thread - if the court ruled that the federal government couldn't nullify or abrogate a state's definition of marriage, why would the court allow a state to nullify or abrogate another state's definition of marriage?
    I think the problem you are having with this hinges on the concept of Constitutional. IF the ban was held to be Constitutional then you have a good argument, but alas the opposite appears to be the case.

    IF is the biggest word in the English language...

    HAS the court ruled the Feds can't nullify or abrogate a state's definition of marriage?

  8. #18
    Canadian Conservative
    CanadaJohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:27 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    27,193

    Re: SSM and the Full Faith and Credit Clause

    Quote Originally Posted by notquiteright View Post
    I think the problem you are having with this hinges on the concept of Constitutional. IF the ban was held to be Constitutional then you have a good argument, but alas the opposite appears to be the case.

    IF is the biggest word in the English language...

    HAS the court ruled the Feds can't nullify or abrogate a state's definition of marriage?
    It ruled that the section of DOMA that only recognized hetersexual marriage was an unconstitutional restriction on a state's right to define marriage - that seems to me to indicate that the court felt that the definition of marriage was a state's rights issue. My point was/is - if the court feels that the definition of marriage is a state's rights issue, they could not possibly rule at another time that one state's definition of marriage takes precedence over another state's definition of marriage and force all states to accept same sex marriage if one state adopts it.
    "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." William F. Buckley Jr.

  9. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    07-16-14 @ 01:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    47,571

    Re: SSM and the Full Faith and Credit Clause

    How about if we just let gays get married and get on with more important issues. Sounds like a plan to me.

  10. #20
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: SSM and the Full Faith and Credit Clause

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    With parts of DOMA recently being struck down, I'm curious as to what people think about section 2:



    Defense of Marriage Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    To me, this seems to be in violation of the full Faith and Credit Clause of the US constitution Full Faith and Credit Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



    So the poll Question is simple:

    Does the Full Faith and Credit Clause mean that an Anti-SSM state must recognize a SSM form another state, constitutionally?

    Yes, it is unconstitutional for a state to withhold recognition of a SSM as per the FFaC clause

    No, it is not unconstitutional for a state to withhold recognition of a SSM as per the FFaC clause

    Other/Don't know
    My opinion has been that the DOMA is clearly unconstitutional as it attempts to amend the Full Faith and Credit clause without actually amending the Constitution to do so.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

Page 2 of 14 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •