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 3 of 14 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 136

Thread: SSM and the Full Faith and Credit Clause

  1. #21
    Dungeon Master
    Hooter Babe

    DiAnna's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Northern California
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    32,651
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: SSM and the Full Faith and Credit Clause

    I voted "don't know", because as I've stated before, I'm no constitutional scholar. I'll add that I wish it was indeed unconstitutional for states to refuse to recognize legal marriages, SSM or otherwise, from other states because if it's not, some stupid state legislature somewhere will declare that no marriages performed in [insert name of "enemy" state] will be recognized.

    I'm all for States' Rights... unless they violate the people's constitutional rights, including the right of equal protection under the law.

  2. #22
    Global Moderator
    Rage More!
    Your Star's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    26,362

    Re: SSM and the Full Faith and Credit Clause

    Yes it violates Full Faith & Credit. If someone gets married in New York, now they both receive state and federal benefits. Now if they move to say Alabama, they will no longer have their marriage recognized by the state, but it will still be recognized by the Fed(I think, we're still kind of iffy on how all this is going to work). Which clearly violates FF&C, since they would recognize a straight married couple.

    The legal standing of any law that denies marriage rights to LGBT people has been seriously undermined today.
    Eat me, drink me, love me;
    Laura make much of me

  3. #23
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    okla-freakin-homa
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    12,625

    Re: SSM and the Full Faith and Credit Clause

    Quote Originally Posted by CanadaJohn View Post
    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.
    Or it means the FEDERAL government can't violate the 5th amendment for individuals that a state has not restricted the definition of marriage to one man, one woman. Combined with their decision to leave in place a Lower Court ruling that California's Prop 8 is unconstitutional seems to be the beginning of the end for ALL states with restrictions on marriage to just one man and one woman. It doesn't mean another state must recognize SSM of another state, it means no state can block SSM on it's own as that has been ruled unconstitutional and the Supreme Court has left that ruling intact.

    California isn't being forced to accept a Maryland SS couple's marriage, it isn't allowed to block Californians from having SSM in state.

  4. #24
    Uncanny
    Paschendale's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    New York City
    Last Seen
    03-31-16 @ 04:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    12,510

    Re: SSM and the Full Faith and Credit Clause

    I have little doubt that there will be another big case dealing with this provision. FFnC was never used to enforce interracial marriage like this, however, so there's no precedent, but it is still why a heterosexual marriage is good in any state. All of this will continue until we have real constitutional scrutiny of SSM bans in general. No half measure is going to do it.

    However... The Prop 8 result from the supreme court vacated the appeal to the California Supreme Court, and instructed it to deny the appeal for lack of standing. So the district court's ruling is final. That ruling established both that SSM should be protected by strict scrutiny, and that Prop 8 fails even to meet a rational basis test. While this result is not controlling in other states, it is quite formative, and any subsequent case in another state is going to have to address this, and find a way to distinguish itself, which it probably cannot do. So the issue may truly be settled already, though it will take time to move through all 50 states, and most likely will end up back at the supreme court before then.

    Quote Originally Posted by Your Star View Post
    Yes it violates Full Faith & Credit. If someone gets married in New York, now they both receive state and federal benefits. Now if they move to say Alabama, they will no longer have their marriage recognized by the state, but it will still be recognized by the Fed(I think, we're still kind of iffy on how all this is going to work). Which clearly violates FF&C, since they would recognize a straight married couple.


    The legal standing of any law that denies marriage rights to LGBT people has been seriously undermined today.
    Indeed. Anyone who thinks that the remaining portions of DOMA do not violate FFnC should answer the question of what in the constitution requires states to accept out of state heterosexual marriages, which they do.
    Liberté. Égalité. Fraternité.

  5. #25
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Theoretical Physics Lab
    Last Seen
    01-06-15 @ 11:06 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    25,120

    Re: SSM and the Full Faith and Credit Clause

    Quote Originally Posted by DiAnna View Post
    I voted "don't know", because as I've stated before, I'm no constitutional scholar. I'll add that I wish it was indeed unconstitutional for states to refuse to recognize legal marriages, SSM or otherwise, from other states because if it's not, some stupid state legislature somewhere will declare that no marriages performed in [insert name of "enemy" state] will be recognized.

    I'm all for States' Rights... unless they violate the people's constitutional rights, including the right of equal protection under the law.
    I don't consider this much of an issue since the federal government still picks and chooses what they want to "enforce".

    If they don't recognize a weapon license, they don't need to recognize a marriage license. Liberals who argue in favor of FF&C are essentially hypocrites and partisan hacks because they like to run around and line-item and piecemeal their own Constitution for their own oppressive purposes.

  6. #26
    Sage
    disneydude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,145

    Re: SSM and the Full Faith and Credit Clause

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    No, a state that bans SSM should not have to recognize a same sex marriage done in a state where it is legal. It is an abuse of the FF&C cause to essentially give a state the power to set policy for the nation, especially when many states ban SSM at the level of their state constitutions.
    Stop for a minute and realize how silly this would be. A couple married in Oregon moves to Idaho and all of a sudden they aren't married....so they live there for 4 years and then move to Washington and all of a sudden they are married again. That just makes the entire country look stupid.
    <font size=5><b>Its been several weeks since the Vegas shooting.  Its it still "Too Early" or can we start having the conversation about finally doing something about these mass shootings???​</b></font>

  7. #27
    Global Moderator
    Truth will set you free
    digsbe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Metro Washington DC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:33 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,984

    Re: SSM and the Full Faith and Credit Clause

    Quote Originally Posted by disneydude View Post
    Stop for a minute and realize how silly this would be. A couple married in Oregon moves to Idaho and all of a sudden they aren't married....so they live there for 4 years and then move to Washington and all of a sudden they are married again. That just makes the entire country look stupid.
    A doctor in Illinois who has been practicing medicine moves to Wisconsin and all of a sudden he is not a doctor and it's illegal for him to practice in Wisconsin because he isn't licensed there.

    A pharmacist from Alaska moved to California who has been a pharmacist in the same drug store for years can not work for their company in California and they are no longer a licensed pharmacist. They move back to Alaska and can work. A pharmacist working as a licensed practitioner in North Carolina writing prescriptions moves to Maine and can no longer do so because that position isn't legal.

    States are not required to recognize things that are prohibited by their laws. What is more silly is saying that one state can essentially set policy for things prohibited by the laws in another state. One state may issue a medical marijuana card and let someone legally posses marijuana. If they leave that state they may now face criminal charges. California and Louisiana are governed by their own laws. Cali may allow for SSM, Louisiana completely prohibits it. When in Louisiana those state laws are the laws of the land. A legal same sex union does not exist in Louisiana, they are not obligated to create and recognize a union that is completely illegal and non-existent there.

  8. #28
    Global Moderator
    Rage More!
    Your Star's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    26,362

    Re: SSM and the Full Faith and Credit Clause

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    A doctor in Illinois who has been practicing medicine moves to Wisconsin and all of a sudden he is not a doctor and it's illegal for him to practice in Wisconsin because he isn't licensed there.

    A pharmacist from Alaska moved to California who has been a pharmacist in the same drug store for years can not work for their company in California and they are no longer a licensed pharmacist. They move back to Alaska and can work. A pharmacist working as a licensed practitioner in North Carolina writing prescriptions moves to Maine and can no longer do so because that position isn't legal.

    States are not required to recognize things that are prohibited by their laws. What is more silly is saying that one state can essentially set policy for things prohibited by the laws in another state. One state may issue a medical marijuana card and let someone legally posses marijuana. If they leave that state they may now face criminal charges. California and Louisiana are governed by their own laws. Cali may allow for SSM, Louisiana completely prohibits it. When in Louisiana those state laws are the laws of the land. A legal same sex union does not exist in Louisiana, they are not obligated to create and recognize a union that is completely illegal and non-existent there.
    Difference is that is applied to all doctors, pharmacists, etc equally. While that is not the case with marriages, if Louisiana recognizes heterosexual marriage licenses from other states, then there is no reason for them to not recognize marriage licenses from same sex couples.
    Eat me, drink me, love me;
    Laura make much of me

  9. #29
    Canadian Conservative
    CanadaJohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    27,193

    Re: SSM and the Full Faith and Credit Clause

    Quote Originally Posted by Your Star View Post
    Difference is that is applied to all doctors, pharmacists, etc equally. While that is not the case with marriages, if Louisiana recognizes heterosexual marriage licenses from other states, then there is no reason for them to not recognize marriage licenses from same sex couples.
    Which may, in the extreme result, mean that a state that wishes to protect its definition of marriage as between one man and one woman may choose to only recognize marriages conducted within their own state's borders and no longer recognize out of state licenses.
    "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.

  10. #30
    Global Moderator
    Rage More!
    Your Star's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    26,362

    Re: SSM and the Full Faith and Credit Clause

    Quote Originally Posted by CanadaJohn View Post
    Which may, in the extreme result, mean that a state that wishes to protect its definition of marriage as between one man and one woman may choose to only recognize marriages conducted within their own state's borders and no longer recognize out of state licenses.
    That may happen in the short term, but what would eventually happen is that all marriages will be recognized everywhere. Most likely through a court case.
    Eat me, drink me, love me;
    Laura make much of me

Page 3 of 14 FirstFirst 1234513 ... 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
  •