Posted on 08/18/2007 9:59:26 AM PDT by Sir Gawain
Friday, August 17, 2007
Nix That [Kathryn Jean Lopez]
From Team Thompson:
I'm afraid CNN story you linked mischaracterized Thompson's comment on gay marriage. They've since altered the story....without noting the change.
For the record, the Thompson camp has officially noted that "Fred Thompson does not support a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage." He supports the rights of States to choose their marriage law for themselves.
The Thompson camp issued this statement:
In an interview with CNN today, former Senator Fred Thompson’s position on constitutional amendments concerning gay marriage was unclear.
Thompson believes that states should be able to adopt their own laws on marriage consistent with the views of their citizens.
He does not believe that one state should be able to impose its marriage laws on other states, or that activist judges should construe the constitution to require that.
If necessary, he would support a constitutional amendment prohibiting states from imposing their laws on marriage on other states.
Fred Thompson does not support a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.
08/17 09:37 PM
From Lousina State Codes:
Art. 3520. Marriage
A. A marriage that is valid in the state where contracted, or in the state where the parties were first domiciled as husband and wife, shall be treated as a valid marriage unless to do so would violate a strong public policy of the state whose law is applicable to the particular issue under Article 3519.
B. A purported marriage between persons of the same sex violates a strong public policy of the state of Louisiana and such a marriage contracted in another state shall not be recognized in this state for any purpose, including the assertion of any right or claim as a result of the purported marriage.
Acts 1991, No. 923, §1, eff. Jan. 1, 1992; Acts 1999, No. 890, §1.
AND Refering to:
Art. 3519. Status of natural persons; general principle
The status of a natural person and the incidents and effects of that status are governed by the law of the state whose policies would be most seriously impaired if its law were not applied to the particular issue.
That state is determined by evaluating the strength and pertinence of the relevant policies of the involved states in the light of: (1) the relationship of each state, at any pertinent time, to the dispute, the parties, and the person whose status is at issue; (2) the policies referred to in Article 3515; and (3) the policies of sustaining the validity of obligations voluntarily undertaken, of protecting children, minors, and others in need of protection, and of preserving family values and stability.
Acts 1991, No. 923, §1, eff. Jan. 1, 1992.
If the parties are of the age of consent, and were married in FL then the marriage would be recognized in LA
BUT WAIT THERE IS MORE:
prior to the laws being amended this gem was passed recognizing prior LA marriages which allowed cousins to marry
PART II. COLLATERAL RELATIONS
§211. Relations of the fourth degree
Notwithstanding the provisions of Civil Code Article 90, marriages between collaterals within the fourth degree, fifty-five years of age or older, which were entered into on or before December 31, 1992, shall be considered legal and the enactment hereof shall in no way impair vested property rights.
Acts 1993, No. 7, §1.
Fred Thompson, I’m afraid, is guilty of taking his federalist viewpoint to the point where it’s harmful.
He’s dead wrong on national tort reform, for instance. In this age of venue shopping, interstate and internet commerce, and being in a litigious society, it’s vital to shore up tort reform at a national level. It really doesn’t matter if 48 states have a specific loophole closed. All it takes is one loophole in the Idaho tax code, and then the dam is breached and the lawsuits can flood in.
He’s also wrong the federal marriage amendement. We’ve already seen what a liberal court can do in Massachusetts. Had John Kerry won election in 2004, me may very well have seen the Supreme Court remain biased to the left.
He’s also voted on the right side of gun control issues only 19 times out of 31 in the name of federalism. This isn’t something that’s of great importance to me, but it appears to be an issue with a number of people here.
I like the idea of federalism in a number of ways, but it takes a bit of thinking as to which issues are important on a national level and why.
Blind federalism is simply impractical and counterproductive.
>>>Though, while I’ll sure take a Constitutional Amendment, to clarify for all these idjuts, none is really needed.<<<
For someone who harps incessantly about the actions of the Supreme Court in Massachusetts, you seem mighty confident of this. Frankly, I’m surprised to see you on this side of the fence.
>>>>Did you know that the ‘zoophile’ movement is growing <<<<
Zoophilia was removed from the list of pathologies by the American Psychiatric Association in 1994, I believe.
Homosexuality was removed in 1978.
Given the flow of time....
Yeah, I back an amendment. It’s time to close the door on this nonsense.
>>>There is NO REASON whatsoever for me (a resident and citizen of Alabama) to tell New Yorkers what they can or cannot recognize as a marriage. I guess you are one of those pro-big govt, pro-nanny state “conservatives.”<<<
I believe you need to get your eyes checked. I’m thinking you might have a pretty good case of short-sightedness.
>>>Honestly, I have no idea what you are talking about. Have you never heard of the independent and adequate state law doctrine? This case that has you so very upset involves a NY judge interpreting NY state law to mean that NY state law allows the recognition of gay marriages that were performed in Canada. There is no federal law involved here, no matter how you try to spin this. <<<
True, this is not a federal matter. But it won’t stop a federal judge from citing this case when he makes the arguments that homosexuals have an equal right to marriage. And this will happen. Bet on it. That much has already been done with international court rulings. State courts are absolutely considered fair game by liberal judges.
The full faith and credit clause does not require a State to substitute for its own statute, applicable to persons and events within it, the conflicting statute of another State, even though that statute is of controlling force in the courts of the State of its enactment with respect to the same persons and events, -- at least in the absence of action by Congress prescribing the extra-state effect to be given state statutes.
Did you read the statutes?
I also checked the case law and there was nothing about an adult marriage out of a state like FL not being recognized in LA.
In fact that is why I included the statute indicating the Full Faith and Credit parts.
so you argument failed.
read.
enjoy.
you’re welcome.
Does anybody in 2007 really need any more evidence that the socialist Democrat "mainstream" newsrooms are packed with sick, lying scumbags? That's a settled issue.
The SPECIFIC cases are all pretty much with minors, NOT adults. IE two kids who ran away and came home and the parents had the right to undo the marriage as an interested party.
The case law (post interacial marriage breeding laws) for adults is silent AND the statutes show a strong presumption to legitimize children and marriages of adults.
The exceptions clause argument is legal BS.
As a lawyer, arguing such an absurdity before a judges over a long term adult marriage with children is unsustainable.
It is no differnt than states allowing recognition of common law marriage that is not recognized or created in state. For example, FL outlawed common law marriage in the early 1970’s. HOWEVER, it DOES have Full Faith and Credit for the remaining out of state common law marriage creation despite the policy against creation of common law marriage in the state.
Like LA, they created a grandfather provision.
Homosexual Marriage mandate a Federal Constitutional Amendment. If we do not do one, Ruth Bader Ginsberg will do one for you.
I don't know why. I've been utterly consistent.
A federalist...
Uh huh, just like the state govt in MA allowed the people of MA to do?? Our Fed Constitution demands that each state remain a Representative Republic, meaning the people must vote, so what happens to the people of NY when the citizens aren’t allowed to vote? Is that not a Federal issue yet?
Some of the things she mentioned is too terrible to repeat . I checked out the book a couple yeas ago .
They fooled me more than once, I will be more careful now .
We have back-door amnesty and now back-door marriage. They are dragging children around in the streets in their parades while they grope and fondle themselves and each other. Plus some are naked . All ready the kids are in danger , when lunatics can adopt or be inseminated .
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.