FTA:In addition to state laws permitting this activity, the Attorney General cites one of the few provisions in the Defense of Marriage Act still standing after this summer's Supreme Court decision: no state can be made to respect a same-sex marriage license from another state.
North Dakota's strict laws against same-sex unions had previously led to tax issues, as well, with the state requesting that anyone holding a same-sex marriage license in another state file their taxes as a single person, essentially eliminating the tax benefits that come with a marriage. Without even looking at the moral implications of forcing a couple with a legal marriage license to declare themselves single, this clearly looks like a recipe for tax code disaster. This opinion in particular, which allows a heterosexual union even when there previously exists a homosexual one, creates a situation in which three individuals are bound and three individuals are filing as married to each other. Because of the Constitution's Full Faith and Credit Clause, the heterosexual union from North Dakota would have to be recognized in some form in the state that provided the same-sex marriage license--whether recognized as a criminal, bigamous act or as a legal license that yields tax credits.
The opinion also creates the most explicit conflict between states on gay marriage yet. It pits North Dakota against states like New York, Massachusetts, and Hawaii that now have to choose between violating the Full Faith and Credit Clause, and upholding a marriage license they issued or acknowledging North Dakota's intransigence and violating the state's standards on gay rights. The legal opinion's uncanny timing also pairs it in headlines with the easing of polygamy laws in Utah, and provides a stark contrast between what self-proclaimed polygamists want from their government and what the individual wishing to marry twice in this case does.
The "Sister Wives" family that won the Utah suit only have one marriage license among them, and do not wish to receive any more. The man in the North Dakota case wants two marriage licenses, and the right to proclaim himself single on legal documents until he receives his second. The latter creates the bigger problem, because the parties in the case want further government involvement in their lives--not to get the government out of their lives--and this forces state governments to turn on each other.
The good news for all involved is that a case in which a man wants to marry a woman after having married a man is a genuinely unusual one, reading almost as a thought experiment designed to challenge law students on how to apply the Constitution's Full Faith and Credit and Comity Clauses. But there is at least one case--that which inspired this legal opinion, and will provide much to talk about in upcoming months, when the individuals that inspired the opinion will likely receive their marriage license.
Like we didn’t see this coming,
and spoke out about it,
and were ridiculed by the left for it.
Did I mention how much I despise leftists?
I really do...
Where is the Bishop?
People of intelligence saw this from the beginning.
Obama’s daddy was a bigamist. It had to happen this way.
apparently you can now be married to more than one person
The first one was a fake. Why should it hinder him from getting married?
The problem here is not bigamy, but sodomy. Plus its accompanying perversities. Plus the rampant wickedness and ungodliness in this “Christian nation”.
But we’ve given up hacking at the root, and instead find some comfort in complaining about the fruit.
I’m split on this one.
The first “marriage” wasn’t a real one, and isn’t recognized in North Dakota. So, if gay marriages aren’t real, then you don’t need a divorce, just a statement of repentance of some sort admitting that it wasn’t a marriage in the first place.
On the other hand, this kind of thing is obviously trashing our system of laws. There’s no good solution once you start going down this path.
Amerika The Freak Show! This “fundamental transformation” crap is some really goofy stuff!
The downward slide continues.
You need a flow chart for this insanity.
Bigamy is self punishing. There is no need to involve the State.
Gay ‘marriage’ is not marriage.
And if a gay man marries a woman and has no intention of being committed to the woman alone, then it isn’t a marriage either.
The government definition of marriage will continue to change, until there is no definition of marriage or the term becomes meaningless. However, the Catholic definition of marriage and related rules for an annullment remain unchanged.
The AG answered the LEGAL questions honestly… since ND does not recognize same sex marriages they can be no valid (i.e. legal) marriage license from another state. What would expect him to say otherwise???
Chaz says it’s all so confusing.
But isn’t the “conservatism” here on Free Republic limited to the subject of economics? Why bother with all of this?
How about this? If you are sodomite play-pretend married to another man, and you apply for a marriage license with a woman, you have a right to be shot in the face.
Works for me.
How long will it take for the lucky truple to adopt?
A couple black kids would fit in nicely in that modern hip family.
More than likely the man is an activist attempting to marry the woman, another activist, in North Dakota merely as a political stunt to muddy the waters. Anything to throw more confusion into the mix.
The new female wife will have a good ole time sharing the two men.
This one is so freaky I can’t figure it out.