• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

SSM and the Full Faith and Credit Clause

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

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

    Votes: 16 53.3%

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

    Votes: 6 20.0%

  • Other/Don't know

    Votes: 8 26.7%
  • Total voters
    30
digsbe said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
disneydude said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
digsbe said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Your Star said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
CanadaJohn said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
digsbe said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Your Star said:
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.
Click to expand...

That's possible - I'd never underestimate the American thirst for a new lawsuit.
 
It should be illegal in America for any state not to legally recognize same sex marriage.
 
CanadaJohn said:
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?
Click to expand...

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?
Click to expand...

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."
 
digsbe said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
molten_dragon said:
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.
Click to expand...

:shrug: I"ll trade you recognition of your marriages for recognition of my concealed carry permits.
 
DA60 said:
It should be illegal in America for any state not to legally recognize same sex marriage.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Tucker Case said:
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."
Click to expand...

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.
 
CanadaJohn said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
cpwill said:
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?
Click to expand...
Fascinating? You must be easy to fascinate.


I meant what I typed - how the feds/states work it out is up to them.

If the feds make same sex marriage nationally recognized, then whatever the states think is irrelevant.
 
CanadaJohn said:
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.
Click to expand...

I recall a war fought on US soil that ended slavery. When was that? I recall rather large riots over completely integrating the South, when was that? I'd say that leaving it to the states to do when 'they are ready' is just another way of saying- never. :doh

I would remind those who think states can set differing standards for their citizens over marriage isn't comparable to say concealed carry. To be comparable to concealed carry the state would have to set different standards for their citizens within the state, such as age, sex, race, hair color, left or right handed... it isn't just about what YOUR gays can do vs another state, it is what your hetros can do vs your Gays.

The FF&C clause may not be the best route, however when the Supreme Court let stand the lower court ruling that prop 8 was unconstitutional that is the beginning of the end for all other state's Constitutional amendments and laws against same sex marriage.

May take a series of lower court rulings, may take the Supreme Court stepping up and declaring such state amendments and laws unconstitutional...

But the last thing that will effect change is letting the states take their time... :peace
 
DA60 said:
Fascinating? You must be easy to fascinate.

I meant what I typed - how the feds/states work it out is up to them.

If the feds make same sex marriage nationally recognized, then whatever the states think is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

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.
 
notquiteright said:
I recall a war fought on US soil that ended slavery. When was that? I recall rather large riots over completely integrating the South, when was that? I'd say that leaving it to the states to do when 'they are ready' is just another way of saying- never. :doh

I would remind those who think states can set differing standards for their citizens over marriage isn't comparable to say concealed carry. To be comparable to concealed carry the state would have to set different standards for their citizens within the state, such as age, sex, race, hair color, left or right handed... it isn't just about what YOUR gays can do vs another state, it is what your hetros can do vs your Gays.

The FF&C clause may not be the best route, however when the Supreme Court let stand the lower court ruling that prop 8 was unconstitutional that is the beginning of the end for all other state's Constitutional amendments and laws against same sex marriage.

May take a series of lower court rulings, may take the Supreme Court stepping up and declaring such state amendments and laws unconstitutional...

But the last thing that will effect change is letting the states take their time... :peace
Click to expand...

Don't count on the Supreme Court making such a decision and vacating state constitutions - Ginsburg, perhaps the most liberal of all justices in my lifetime, has clearly stated that she believes the court erred in Roe v Wade because it out-paced the movement of the country as it related to abortion - I don't see her making the same mistake with SSM - I have nothing against SSM that I don't have against all state sanctioned marriage - I just don't see this court being so activist as you suggest.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Don't count on the Supreme Court making such a decision and vacating state constitutions - Ginsburg, perhaps the most liberal of all justices in my lifetime, has clearly stated that she believes the court erred in Roe v Wade because it out-paced the movement of the country as it related to abortion - I don't see her making the same mistake with SSM - I have nothing against SSM that I don't have against all state sanctioned marriage - I just don't see this court being so activist as you suggest.
Click to expand...

Good afternoon, CJ. :2wave:

I am going to wait and see what happens if the balance of conservatives and liberals changes, since it appears that party interpretation is the key! As an example, "infringed" versus some other word. :shock:
 
polgara said:
Good afternoon, CJ. :2wave:

I am going to wait and see what happens if the balance of conservatives and liberals changes, since it appears that party interpretation is the key! As an example, "infringed" versus some other word. :shock:
Click to expand...

Good afternoon Lady P - still very humid up here but we could get a break tonight - hope you're doing okay and on your way home soon - take care
 
CanadaJohn said:
Don't count on the Supreme Court making such a decision and vacating state constitutions - Ginsburg, perhaps the most liberal of all justices in my lifetime, has clearly stated that she believes the court erred in Roe v Wade because it out-paced the movement of the country as it related to abortion - I don't see her making the same mistake with SSM - I have nothing against SSM that I don't have against all state sanctioned marriage - I just don't see this court being so activist as you suggest.
Click to expand...

You ignore the thrust of my response to the 'at their own pace' comment. For a century AFTER the end of our Civil War the states proceeded at their own pace and only at FEDERAL insistence did the integration achieve anything like equal rights.

It probably doesn't need to be done as a FF&C clause, but then again this doesn't lend itself to the opponents shouting MURDER and waving aborted fetus pictures around. Not near the emotional issue... all wailing done by a small highly emotional group of mourners on the interwebz aside.

I can see a FF&C showdown OR a roll call of states having their state constitution amendments tossed out until a tipping point is reached and then the Supreme Court has had enough and issues the final decision.

Now I can see the Supreme Court vacating ANY amendment to ANY constitution that it sees as unconstitutional no matter the timing. They will not vacate the entire state constitution, just the one amendment.

As far as activist goes- doing their job isn't activist, of late they seem intent on tearing the dirty bandaid off a millimeter at a time instead of one swift pull.

But my point was allowing the states to proceed at their own sweet time is code for some never getting around to it as Birmingham is in my memory. :peace
 
CanadaJohn said:
Good afternoon Lady P - still very humid up here but we could get a break tonight - hope you're doing okay and on your way home soon - take care
Click to expand...

:thanks: 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! :eek: 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! :lamo:
 
notquiteright said:
You ignore the thrust of my response to the 'at their own pace' comment. For a century AFTER the end of our Civil War the states proceeded at their own pace and only at FEDERAL insistence did the integration achieve anything like equal rights.

It probably doesn't need to be done as a FF&C clause, but then again this doesn't lend itself to the opponents shouting MURDER and waving aborted fetus pictures around. Not near the emotional issue... all wailing done by a small highly emotional group of mourners on the interwebz aside.

I can see a FF&C showdown OR a roll call of states having their state constitution amendments tossed out until a tipping point is reached and then the Supreme Court has had enough and issues the final decision.

Now I can see the Supreme Court vacating ANY amendment to ANY constitution that it sees as unconstitutional no matter the timing. They will not vacate the entire state constitution, just the one amendment.

As far as activist goes- doing their job isn't activist, of late they seem intent on tearing the dirty bandaid off a millimeter at a time instead of one swift pull.

But my point was allowing the states to proceed at their own sweet time is code for some never getting around to it as Birmingham is in my memory. :peace
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom