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 7 of 14 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 136

Thread: SSM and the Full Faith and Credit Clause

  1. #61
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    okla-freakin-homa
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    12,620

    Re: SSM and the Full Faith and Credit Clause

    Quote Originally Posted by CanadaJohn View Post
    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.
    My marriage was not a religious rite, I am quite happy to not have been married in a church but a Federal Judge's chambers. I consider my marriage as valid as any done in a Church and my marriage has lasted 26 years, longer than many church weddings. Many, who are not particularly religious, feel their union is a marriage just like any in a Church.

    The real shift has happened in the last 20 years or so, pretty fast die-off so I be thinking it isn't young people but ALL people and the majority will not see anything being forced down any throat but a long awaited equality that was too long in coming. Just like interracial marriage.

    But as usual you ignore the crux, some states will never permit SSM and that isn't how the UNITED STATES works.

    But it is a bit amusing to see 'conservatives' bemoan the government creating 'artificial legal rights' to mold society when it is a benchmark talking point of the 'conservatives' since I can remember. Seems to me that now with those 'artificial legal rights' being extended to all who wish to marry, not just the approved by the right wing religious crowd, some 'conservatives' are bored with the whole thing and want all legal rights revoked.

    Seems weak....

  2. #62
    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 notquiteright View Post
    My marriage was not a religious rite, I am quite happy to not have been married in a church but a Federal Judge's chambers. I consider my marriage as valid as any done in a Church and my marriage has lasted 26 years, longer than many church weddings. Many, who are not particularly religious, feel their union is a marriage just like any in a Church.

    The real shift has happened in the last 20 years or so, pretty fast die-off so I be thinking it isn't young people but ALL people and the majority will not see anything being forced down any throat but a long awaited equality that was too long in coming. Just like interracial marriage.

    But as usual you ignore the crux, some states will never permit SSM and that isn't how the UNITED STATES works.

    But it is a bit amusing to see 'conservatives' bemoan the government creating 'artificial legal rights' to mold society when it is a benchmark talking point of the 'conservatives' since I can remember. Seems to me that now with those 'artificial legal rights' being extended to all who wish to marry, not just the approved by the right wing religious crowd, some 'conservatives' are bored with the whole thing and want all legal rights revoked.

    Seems weak....
    Far be it for me to try to take that broad, sweeping brush out of your "progressive" hand, but just to disabuse you of your view of this conservative, I strongly believe that there should be no government program that accrues benefit to any "coupling" that does not equally accrue to all individuals in their own right. If you truly believe in equality and equal protection under the law, you would strongly oppose any government tax or benefit program that treats two individuals differently solely based on their having a state sponsored certificate. If you want to be truly progressive, you wouldn't be looking to expand the extra benefits club, you'd be looking to eliminate the club entirely.
    "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. #63
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    okla-freakin-homa
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    12,620

    Re: SSM and the Full Faith and Credit Clause

    Quote Originally Posted by CanadaJohn View Post
    Far be it for me to try to take that broad, sweeping brush out of your "progressive" hand, but just to disabuse you of your view of this conservative, I strongly believe that there should be no government program that accrues benefit to any "coupling" that does not equally accrue to all individuals in their own right. If you truly believe in equality and equal protection under the law, you would strongly oppose any government tax or benefit program that treats two individuals differently solely based on their having a state sponsored certificate. If you want to be truly progressive, you wouldn't be looking to expand the extra benefits club, you'd be looking to eliminate the club entirely.
    Did I say YOU? I note 'conservatives' peel the onion when it serves. Traditionally it has been the 'conservatives' holding hetro marriage and a stay at home mom as THE ultimate expression of a strong society and a strong nation. I know that makes you uncomfortable and not every 'conservative' is in exact lock step with the social conservatives.

    Social conservatives attack the social safety net as destroying the family, not progressives. I am lukewarm at best about tax breaks...feel very strongly a same sex couple should get medical benefits and the ability to have a say in each other's care if incapacitated. Should be able to get a dependent card if in the military, should get to avoid the 'death tax' so reviled by the right wing.

    You are attempting to put progressives in with ultra liberals. I didn't try and push you into libertarian for your shirking the social conservative agenda... be as considerate to me and address what I type, not what you want to hype...

  4. #64
    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

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    I find it fascinating because usually you are a libertarian-esque fellow; but here you are calling for an expanded role for the central government in determining social policy.
    Because marriage between ANY two consenting adults should be a right.

    Leaving it up to the states will just make a mess of it as some will have it and some will not.

    Some things are best left to the states - this is not one of them.

  5. #65
    Sage
    MoSurveyor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    04-13-17 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,985

    Re: SSM and the Full Faith and Credit Clause

    I think a lot of it depends on their State of residence, not where they were married. No jumping the border and bouncing back with a license. I hate that answer but I think it's probably the legal one.
    Mt. Rushmore: Three surveyors and some other guy.
    Life goes on within you and without you. -Harrison
    Hear the echoes of the centuries, Power isn't all that money buys. -Peart
    After you learn quantum mechanics you're never really the same again. -Weinberg

  6. #66
    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
    Because marriage between ANY two consenting adults should be a right.
    Because...... you declare marriage to be thus defined?

  7. #67
    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

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    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."
    What the issue is really about, Tucker, is whether or not a couple from South Carolina can go to New York, get married, and have their marriage be in effect all through the country. Even if South Carolina won't marry them (issue them a license) in the first place. For a heterosexual couple, that would happen, but for a gay couple, it would not. And South Carolina should have to honor a marriage license issued in another state. That's why it evokes FFnC.

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    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?
    "Impose its definition of marriage" what a stupid way to say it. No, that's not what's going on here. It's that the constitution doesn't allow discrimination in marriage based on sexuality. There is no "definition of marriage" and nobody is imposing anything. The constitution is securing people's basic civil rights.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    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.
    So let's impose fewer rules. Let's not have the rule that infringes on people's fundamental right to marry based on gender or sexuality.
    Liberté. Égalité. Fraternité.

  8. #68
    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 Paschendale View Post
    "Impose its definition of marriage" what a stupid way to say it. No, that's not what's going on here. It's that the constitution doesn't allow discrimination in marriage based on sexuality. There is no "definition of marriage" and nobody is imposing anything. The constitution is securing people's basic civil rights.
    to declare homosexual couples equally deserving of the title of marriage is indeed to put definition on it. what DA60 was suggesting was absolutely that the federal government government should define marriage as any consensual relationship between two adults who want to be defined as such.


    So let's impose fewer rules. Let's not have the rule that infringes on people's fundamental right to marry based on gender or sexuality.
    We already have none.

  9. #69
    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

    Quote Originally Posted by polgara View Post
    It's predicted to be 99 degrees tomorrow, so if I do venture outdoors, it will be at 0500 until 0515...long enough for the dogs to get their business done! It's what I have been doing for the past week to let my daughter sleep in a bit before she has to go to work! :
    its 109 today and supposed to reach up to 120 by the weekend.

    shall i go swimming in my pool, or is it just to hot for that?

  10. #70
    Sage
    polgara's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    NE Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:32 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,348

    Re: SSM and the Full Faith and Credit Clause

    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    its 109 today and supposed to reach up to 120 by the weekend.

    shall i go swimming in my pool, or is it just to hot for that?
    Good evening, EB!

    : If I feel that I should take a bar of soap with me to the pool, it's too hot to go swimming! A cool indoor shower works better!

    Where on earth are you located with those temps?

Page 7 of 14 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... 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
  •