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 6 of 14 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 136

Thread: SSM and the Full Faith and Credit Clause

  1. #51
    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
    Sorry, I didn't ignore the "thrust" of your argument - I appreciate it - I simply point out that it is better to have society grow to accept something willingly, or have younger people take over from older generations and provide greater acceptance, than it is to force something on people. It happened with abortion, and it's been argued, by Ginsburg as well, that had they not forced it, as they did, it may have evolved with greater acceptance over time. Obamacare is similar - because people feel it was forced upon them, they are resistant, even if parts of it are very desireable.

    In-your-face dictation of how you will act is never the best way to build consensus. I'll tell you, quite plainly, that had same sex marriage advocates agreed to accept a different term for their unions - such as the term "union" - provided that the government acrued to same sex unions the exact same legal status, benefits and recognition as heterosexual marriage, there would have been far greater acceptance than there already is. For whatever reason, SSM advocates insisted upon co-opting and pushing the "marriage" part of same sex unions for what appears to many as just political reasons. That's not a way to draw people to your cause and make friends.
    But we see on many issues society doesn't grow into it, the younger generations continue the unconstitutional denial of civil liberties brave Americans fought each other over... who gets to decide the really big issues of the day, each individual state or the UNITED STATES?

    As we type back and forth the polls show 53% of AMERICANS favor SSM. Those who wish to deny in a delaying action against history, be it slavery, equal access to schooling, interracial marriage, and now same sex. At the time of the Loving decision 73% of America was against mixing the races through legally recognized marriage. there was no blood in the streets rioting over it by those who disagreed. Now we accept interracial at roughly 75%.

    Coddling society and being so sensitive to the opponent feelings is a liberal 'fault'. Standing up for the correct thing no matter what WAS once a 'conservative' talking point...

    what happened????

  2. #52
    Sage
    Guy Incognito's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Seen
    12-02-17 @ 07:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    11,216

    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
    I voted "yes," but I would have preferred an option for, "yeah... Duh."

  3. #53
    Sage
    Guy Incognito's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Seen
    12-02-17 @ 07:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    11,216

    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.
    That is bull****. A state can only set its own laws and must give full faith and credit to other states. A state that Hans first cousin marriage cannot deny benefits to a first cousin marriage from another state, for example.

  4. #54
    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 notquiteright View Post
    But we see on many issues society doesn't grow into it, the younger generations continue the unconstitutional denial of civil liberties brave Americans fought each other over... who gets to decide the really big issues of the day, each individual state or the UNITED STATES?

    As we type back and forth the polls show 53% of AMERICANS favor SSM. Those who wish to deny in a delaying action against history, be it slavery, equal access to schooling, interracial marriage, and now same sex. At the time of the Loving decision 73% of America was against mixing the races through legally recognized marriage. there was no blood in the streets rioting over it by those who disagreed. Now we accept interracial at roughly 75%.

    Coddling society and being so sensitive to the opponent feelings is a liberal 'fault'. Standing up for the correct thing no matter what WAS once a 'conservative' talking point...

    what happened????
    Actually, a strong conservative principle, at least where I come from, is that government should not involve itself unnecessarily in the societal mores of its citizenry. As I've stated many times before, if the government wasn't in the marriage business we wouldn't have this problem.
    "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.

  5. #55
    Sage
    polgara's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    NE Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:03 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,355

    Re: SSM and the Full Faith and Credit Clause

    Out till later this evening.

    Wedding to attend at 1830.

    Be well.

  6. #56
    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
    Actually, a strong conservative principle, at least where I come from, is that government should not involve itself unnecessarily in the societal mores of its citizenry. As I've stated many times before, if the government wasn't in the marriage business we wouldn't have this problem.
    Your strongly held principle of government out of the marriage business stands in stark contrast to many others who believe they too hold strong conservative principles that MUST 'defend' marriage from gays and government MUST do that. The Federal Marriage Amendment came from social conservatives. The key word here is 'unnecessarily' and like happiness it means different things to different people.

    What one group terms a societal more is another's civil rights. This isn't a vote on gay being good or bad, it is equal treatment. As long as there are 'death taxes', insurance issues, medical permission, adoption, healthcare laws the government will be knee deep in marriage. Can't wish it away.

    Now compared to other social issues like who gets to sit at what lunch counter or classroom, who gets to control the reproductive cycle of a woman- marriage seems a very simple issue not fraught with the intense emotion of the former. Interracial marriage didn't set off the protests integration of the Mississippi Higher Education system did.

    But to go back the the main point in my train of thought... at their own pace means some citizens will never see the same treatment under the law most other citizens receive in other states. The Constitution doesn't segregate the citizenry, we are the UNITED STATES, not a Commonwealth. At some point FF&C comes into play.

  7. #57
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    Re: SSM and the Full Faith and Credit Clause

    Quote Originally Posted by notquiteright View Post
    What one group terms a societal more is another's civil rights. This isn't a vote on gay being good or bad, it is equal treatment. As long as there are 'death taxes', insurance issues, medical permission, adoption, healthcare laws the government will be knee deep in marriage. Can't wish it away.
    I don't see why any of those issues makes marriage a necessary part of the governments functions.

  8. #58
    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 notquiteright View Post
    Your strongly held principle of government out of the marriage business stands in stark contrast to many others who believe they too hold strong conservative principles that MUST 'defend' marriage from gays and government MUST do that. The Federal Marriage Amendment came from social conservatives. The key word here is 'unnecessarily' and like happiness it means different things to different people.

    What one group terms a societal more is another's civil rights. This isn't a vote on gay being good or bad, it is equal treatment. As long as there are 'death taxes', insurance issues, medical permission, adoption, healthcare laws the government will be knee deep in marriage. Can't wish it away.

    Now compared to other social issues like who gets to sit at what lunch counter or classroom, who gets to control the reproductive cycle of a woman- marriage seems a very simple issue not fraught with the intense emotion of the former. Interracial marriage didn't set off the protests integration of the Mississippi Higher Education system did.

    But to go back the the main point in my train of thought... at their own pace means some citizens will never see the same treatment under the law most other citizens receive in other states. The Constitution doesn't segregate the citizenry, we are the UNITED STATES, not a Commonwealth. At some point FF&C comes into play.
    I won't belabor the point - I'll simply end by saying, if you follow the trends in support of SSM, you will note the great strides that have been achieved, particularly in the opinions of young people who don't carry the same baggage with them - my concern, as someone who supports SS unions, but wishes the government wasn't involved, leaving marriage as a religious rite, is that any attempt to take this ruling and force it down the throats of states that are not ready will do nothing but set back what should be the real goal, broader acceptance, not just artificial legal rights that governments created and attached to marriage in an effort to mold society.
    "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. #59
    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 Henrin View Post
    I don't see why any of those issues makes marriage a necessary part of the governments functions.
    Ya got me. Me either. All of those can be handled with minimal legislation.

  10. #60
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,822

    Re: SSM and the Full Faith and Credit Clause

    since marriage is a right yes states should have to recognize thier RIGHTS.

    Is somebody honestly saying that its ok if a couple gets married in one state and has all the state and federal rights of marriage but is driving through another state, gets in a car accident they should lose all their marriage rights until they leave that state?????

    what if your spouse is just in that state by themsleves and gets in an accident, is it ok for that hospital to deny medical decisions or visitation rights or not notify you because that state doesnt recognize your marriage? of course not thats complete BS lol

    eventually now that DOMA is dead this issue will get pushed and it will be righted
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

Page 6 of 14 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... 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
  •