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 4 of 14 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 136

Thread: SSM and the Full Faith and Credit Clause

  1. #31
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,693

    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.
    Actually, you are partially correct. Most licenses are tiered. They have both a state license and an interstate license. If one has the higher tiered license, and one moves from one state to another, they can still practice. The license is accepted on a federal level, or it is a license that has been accepted in all 50 states.
    "Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

    ====||:-D

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything .
    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Had you been born elsewhere or at a different time you may very well have chosen a different belief system.
    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    It a person has faith they dont need to convince another of it, and when a non believer is not interested in listening to the word of the lord, " you shake the dust from your sandels and move on"

  2. #32
    Canadian Conservative
    CanadaJohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 03:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    27,189

    Re: SSM and the Full Faith and Credit Clause

    Quote Originally Posted by Your Star View Post
    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.
    That's possible - I'd never underestimate the American thirst for a new lawsuit.
    "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.

  3. #33
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Where I am now
    Last Seen
    09-11-17 @ 03:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,386

    Re: SSM and the Full Faith and Credit Clause

    It should be illegal in America for any state not to legally recognize same sex marriage.

  4. #34
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    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?
    Because the State's definition of marriage cannot possibly cross it's borders. To explain, the ban creates an absence of any judgments in said state. There are no records of people NOT being married which can move between states that require recognition.

    In order for FFaC to apply, the states would have to pass judgements on specific SS couples saying they are incapable of being married to each other, which would, more than likely, be ruled unconstitutional in and of themselves.

    The lack of any judgements and records invovled means that FFaC cannot possibly apply.

    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?
    No state can nullify or abrogate another state's definition of marriage. The state still has control over their decision not to issue marriage certificates to SS couples. Their definition remains intact. The same sex marriages that would exist in said state due to the FFaC clause would be marriages according to the state which the marriage license was issued, and according to the federal government, and for legal purposes within the state of residence, but they are free to say "Nope, that's not a marriage. It's something else."
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  5. #35
    Sage
    disneydude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,144

    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.
    Silly reply because the doctor in Wisconsin CAN get a license. So he can still practice medicine....same with the Pharmacist.

    Additionally, when you are talking marriage, you are talking about a fundamental right that has been recognized as such by the US Supreme Court. It would create a really stupid situation if a couple is married in one state moves to another and then suddenly they aren't married anymore. Think about it Digs. Actually, I am sure that down deep you agree and see what a silly idea that would be...but your opposition to gay marriage and your religious beliefs won't allow it. The reality is, gay marriage across the country is an inevitable reality. That was clearly evident, not just from Kennedy's opinion, but Scalia's dissent. The opponents of marriage equality can fight desperately to hold onto the last vestiges of bigotry....but it is obvious that they will fail. I've read your posts for several years Digs....I know that you will come around. You are a smart young guy who just needs time to accept it.
    <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>

  6. #36
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,107

    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.
    I"ll trade you recognition of your marriages for recognition of my concealed carry permits.

  7. #37
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,107

    Re: SSM and the Full Faith and Credit Clause

    Quote Originally Posted by DA60 View Post
    It should be illegal in America for any state not to legally recognize same sex marriage.
    What a fascinating argument to make - so you disagree with the recent supreme court ruling and find that the Federal Government does, in fact, have the right to impose its' definition of marriage on the States?

  8. #38
    Canadian Conservative
    CanadaJohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 03:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    27,189

    Re: SSM and the Full Faith and Credit Clause

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    Because the State's definition of marriage cannot possibly cross it's borders. To explain, the ban creates an absence of any judgments in said state. There are no records of people NOT being married which can move between states that require recognition.

    In order for FFaC to apply, the states would have to pass judgements on specific SS couples saying they are incapable of being married to each other, which would, more than likely, be ruled unconstitutional in and of themselves.

    The lack of any judgements and records invovled means that FFaC cannot possibly apply.



    No state can nullify or abrogate another state's definition of marriage. The state still has control over their decision not to issue marriage certificates to SS couples. Their definition remains intact. The same sex marriages that would exist in said state due to the FFaC clause would be marriages according to the state which the marriage license was issued, and according to the federal government, and for legal purposes within the state of residence, but they are free to say "Nope, that's not a marriage. It's something else."
    That's pretty much what I expected - I asked the question since many people here seemed to imply that yesterday's ruling was a first step in lifting all bans in all states related to same sex marriage and I thought it simply ruled that the federal goverment couldn't eliminate a state's defined classification of same sex marriage as sanctioned and legitimate when applying federal mandates across the states.

    It's the type of ruling, in my opinion, that would have been wise in the abortion cases early on - allowing the states to move at their own pace. I'm pretty sure they'll all get there eventually, in their own way, but at least then it will be something that is accepted by a majority in a state and not something the majority feels was imposed upon them.
    "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. #39
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: SSM and the Full Faith and Credit Clause

    Quote Originally Posted by CanadaJohn View Post
    That's pretty much what I expected - I asked the question since many people here seemed to imply that yesterday's ruling was a first step in lifting all bans in all states related to same sex marriage and I thought it simply ruled that the federal goverment couldn't eliminate a state's defined classification of same sex marriage as sanctioned and legitimate when applying federal mandates across the states.

    It's the type of ruling, in my opinion, that would have been wise in the abortion cases early on - allowing the states to move at their own pace. I'm pretty sure they'll all get there eventually, in their own way, but at least then it will be something that is accepted by a majority in a state and not something the majority feels was imposed upon them.
    I completely agree with you. I'm of the belief that whenever rules are forced upon people, it only serves to increase their resistance to such rules, which increases animosity between groups.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  10. #40
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,971

    Re: SSM and the Full Faith and Credit Clause

    When it comes to licenses relating to constitutionally protected rights, I would think one should be able to maintain that licenses and it's benefits even if you enter into another state where said license could not be granted. Going from one state to another state should not deprive you of the benefits relating to licenses/permits you have concerning constitutionally protected rights.

    So if I was gay, I should grab a man and marriage licenses in Maryland and a Concealled Carry Permit and gun in Virginia and move my ass to Illinois while yucking it up.

Page 4 of 14 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... 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
  •