Posted on 02/12/2014 9:45:58 AM PST by GIdget2004
If they were married in Canada, it wouldnt be different than being married in one of the 57 states. ;)
Most countries recognise legal marriages from other countries.
The US is different, as the individual states, and not the nation, license the marriage, but they are still recognised as legal worldwide.
With gay marriage, though, some countries dont recognise them fron other countries, if their country doesnt allow them.
Wonder how he’d rule on CCW permit issued in other states?
Good point.
I guess my point is that I believe the Court may have been in error in not striking down Section 2.
Once Congress arrogates this power to itself, what is to keep it from deciding that custody decisions, divorces, etc. by one state need not be respected by others?
The point is moot, of course, since the present, and probably any future, Congress would not pass a DOMA. In fact, they are more likely to pass a law requiring every state to accept any marriage legal in another state. Which, if you accept the constitutionality of Section 2, seems well within their power.
“Texas has better than a law that says marriage is between a man and woman. Several years ago, we amended the Texas Constitution so our TEXAS CONSTITUTION says marriage is between a man and a woman.”
So did California, and we all know how well that worked out.
The opinion from a federal court regarding Texas is also due today. I wonder if there is one sane court in the country.
It is non sequitur to compare California with Texas.
Then it should also work the other way around. If my state does not recognize gay marriage, than all other states have to recognize “the will” of my state.
You presented a lot of options but didn’t answer the question. I know where babies come from. I have three. I asked where these children came from. But thanks.
I did a little looking now and found one article which said that their two children were adopted.
Then it should also work the other way around. If my state does not recognize gay marriage, than all other states have to recognize “the will” of my state.
I think Hawaii was the first state to consider gay marriage. That’s why those against the idea fought so hard to keep Hawaii from doing it—they knew that the “full faith and credit” clause would kick in. Some states prohibit first cousins from marrying, but if they are married in a state that allows it, they are still married when they return home—it’s just the way it is.
You’re not getting the point. IF other states may interject their laws INTO our state, why should we have the same right to interject our laws into THEIR state?
Note that one of the reasons that we have to question what Congress might do is because state lawmakers foolishly ratified the ill-conceived 17th Amendment. Otherwise the state legislators could better rely on the Senate to kill legislation such as you mentioned from being passed.
Otherwise, patriots need to support conservatives trying to get themselves elected to Congress so that Congress can impeach activist justices.
Finally, the states need to learn how to amend the Constitution again so that they can do so to tighten the "leash" on Congress's limited powers when they need to.
No, I do get the point and I understand the reasoning behind it. It’s just that the full faith and credit clause doesn’t apply to a negative.
A couple getting married in Missouri is an official, legal act of the state of Missouri that other states are bound by the constitution to recognize. (Now, it could be argued that marriage shouldn’t be the business of any state, but all 50 states have chosen to get into it). Likewise for a divorce. New York used to require proof—in court—of adultery to grant a divorce. Nevada required “mental cruelty” and six weeks residency. New York had to recognize the Nevada divorce. You can argue that Nevada was negating the New York legislature’s wishes (and it was!) but that didn’t change New York’s obligation to recognize the Nevada divorce.
I believe that a major reason for the gay lobby’s effort to get a state—any state—to recognize gay marriage was the knowledge that the full faith and credit clause would push things to where they now seem to be heading.
Poor kids.
The definition of marriage isn't a negative. It is the time-honored, natural positive definition of the legal, societal, biological relationship between a man and a woman and the children which naturally result from this union.
There is no reason we should not be able to interject this definition into other states any more than they can interject their own change of this meaning into other states.
The definition of marriage isn’t a negative.
As I said in an earlier post, the only way to have stopped this from happening would have been via a Constitutional amendment. But I honestly think any chance of that happening has passed.
The trend appears to be Federal judges forcing states to grant marriage rights to gays via the 14th Amendment—”anything contrary in their laws or constitutions notwithstanding”.
Heyburn, John Gilpin II
Born 1948 in Boston, MA
Federal Judicial Service:
Judge, U.S. District Court, Western District of Kentucky
Nominated by George H.W. Bush on March 20, 1992, to a seat vacated by Thomas A. Ballantine, Jr.. Confirmed by the Senate on August 12, 1992, and received commission on August 17, 1992. Served as chief judge, 2001-2008.
Education:
Harvard College, A.B., 1970
University of Kentucky College of Law, J.D., 1976
Professional Career:
U.S. Army Reserve, 1970-1976
Private practice, Louisville, Kentucky, 1976-1992
Time to make being a federal judge an unpleasant job.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.