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 1 of 14 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 136

Thread: SSM and the Full Faith and Credit Clause

  1. #1
    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

    SSM and the Full Faith and Credit Clause

    With parts of DOMA recently being struck down, I'm curious as to what people think about section 2:

    No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.
    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

    Full faith and credit ought to be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings, of every other state; and the legislature shall, by general laws, prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings, shall be proved, and the effect which judgments, obtained in one state, shall have in another.
    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
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  2. #2
    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 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
    States allowed for legal SSM because they knew that DOMA violates FF&C.

    They were right.

    Withholding recognition is absolutely unconstitutional.

  3. #3
    Global Moderator
    Truth will set you free
    digsbe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Metro Washington DC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:49 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,981

    Re: SSM and the Full Faith and Credit Clause

    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.

  4. #4
    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 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.
    Do you know how often FF&C is abused though? This is a drop in the bucket.

    The Constitution is still rife with legalized governmental abuse, ranging from FF&C to Eminent Domain and beyond. Sometimes you just have to pick your battles. I don't think SSM is one.

  5. #5
    Global Moderator
    Truth will set you free
    digsbe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Metro Washington DC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:49 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,981

    Re: SSM and the Full Faith and Credit Clause

    Quote Originally Posted by Gipper View Post
    Do you know how often FF&C is abused though? This is a drop in the bucket.

    The Constitution is still rife with legalized governmental abuse, ranging from FF&C to Eminent Domain and beyond. Sometimes you just have to pick your battles. I don't think SSM is one.
    Not when it violates specific laws and state Constitutions. Louisiana has a pretty straightforward and strict provision in theirs.

    15. Defense of Marriage

    Section 15. Marriage in the state of Louisiana shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman. No official or court of the state of Louisiana shall construe this constitution or any state law to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any member of a union other than the union of one man and one woman. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized. No official or court of the state of Louisiana shall recognize any marriage contracted in any other jurisdiction which is not the union of one man and one woman.

    Added by Acts 2004, No. 926, 1, approved Sept. 18, 2004, eff. Oct. 19, 2004.
    http://www.legis.state.la.us/lss/lss.asp?doc=286906

    As far as the states go, they shouldn't be required to violate their highest law of the land to recognize something done in another state. A state doesn't need to recognize a medical marijuana card because it was issued somewhere where it is legal, they don't need to recognize professional licenses, and I don't think they should be forced to recognize prohibited marriages.

  6. #6
    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 digsbe View Post
    As far as the states go, they shouldn't be required to violate their highest law of the land to recognize something done in another state. A state doesn't need to recognize a medical marijuana card because it was issued somewhere where it is legal, they don't need to recognize professional licenses, and I don't think they should be forced to recognize prohibited marriages.
    I personally agree. Now more than ever, I see the extensive flaws in the FF&C Clause. In the times of our forefathers, it helped to mend economies and make interstate business and commerce very easy and streamlined. These days, it divides more than it unites. I'd like to see it gone, but the chances of that happening fall somewhere between zero and "lol".

  7. #7
    Sage
    Fisher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Last Seen
    12-06-13 @ 02:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    17,002

    Re: SSM and the Full Faith and Credit Clause

    The more likely path is that it will parallel common law marriage or bigamy laws which are a legal mess under FF&C. Some states allow bigamists to divorce, some other do not because the marriage is invalid under operation of law in their state; states with no common law marriage might allow the courts to handle some variation of a divorce proceeding as to assets, but not allow CLM to be a basis for spousal immunity from testimony. I really think the country could benefit from a Uniform Domestic Relations Code but there are just too many damn variants from state to state to deal with that I am not sure they could all be reconciled into a acceptable consensus as to what the law should be.

  8. #8
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    okla-freakin-homa
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:33 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    12,619

    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.
    My first observation is those who don't like SSM seem intent to salvage the ability to build a wall around states have not SSM.

    I don't see the FF&C clause as violating any state's Constitutionally designated rights but rather extending an individual's rights across the nation. If an individual has the right to marry the same sex in one state then he has the right to do so in any state. We are the United States, not the allied states or the confederation of states.

    When it comes to States that have 'traditional marriage' or bans on same sex marriage in their Constitutions, I believe they are using a leaky bucket. Has any one of the state constitutional amendments gone through the Supreme Court for a ruling? The legislature can pass damn near any law but it must pass Constitutional muster all the way up. Best I can find is NO state constitutional amendment has been ruled Constitutional.

    So we have a balancing act, do individual rights supersede state rights? Does a state's right to regulate an activity have to pass Constitutional muster at the Federal level? Does the state have a right to outright ban certain individual activities the federal level says is Constitutional?

    Course I have always wondered why the concealed carry crowd doesn't push the FF&C clause as well.

  9. #9
    Anti-Hypocrite
    molten_dragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Southeast Michigan
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:56 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    9,351

    Re: SSM and the Full Faith and Credit Clause

    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.
    If you build a man a fire, he'll be warm for a day.

    If you set a man on fire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

  10. #10
    Canadian Conservative
    CanadaJohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 03:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    27,186

    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'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?

    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?
    "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.

Page 1 of 14 12311 ... 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
  •