That's nonsense. If Montana doesn't issue (for example) drivers licenses to anyone under 25, then no one under 25 drives, and that includes anyone under 25 from another state who moves there with a valid license from the other state. The license from the other state is useless in Montana. A license for any imagined activity, illegal in Montana, legal elsewhere, isn't going to hold any weight in Montana. The full faith and credit clause was never intended to force a state to permit illegal behavior just because that behavior is legal in some other state.
This whole idea of preemptively amending the Constitution is hysterical madness. The federal courts are going to decide this matter before this stupid amendment ever gets passed anyway. Sheez, the things people worry about.
But now we have activist anti-American judges on the bench. Why would they be concerned about laws? They have agendas. That's how Massachusetts became Gomorrah Massachusetts, the land of the damned. The legislature makes laws, not judges - according to that old outdated Constitution, anyway.
The Full Faith and Credit clause has been specifically mentioned by advocates of same sex marriage as a way to insinuate such "marriages" throughout the country. The FF and C clause, in case you don't know about it, mandates that contracts such as marriage must be accepted by other states. So there would be (and probably has been already) lawsuits trying to force other states than MASS to recognize the same sex marriages performed elsewhere.
What is your personal viewpoint of same sex marriage? If you think it's good, or no big deal, then I can understand your comments.
I have seen it said on these boards that the same distinctions apply to marriage when it comes to the age at which one can be legally married in the different states.
That's nonsense. If Montana doesn't issue (for example) drivers licenses to anyone under 25, then no one under 25 drives, and that includes anyone under 25 from another state who moves there with a valid license from the other state. The license from the other state is useless in Montana. A license for any imagined activity, illegal in Montana, legal elsewhere, isn't going to hold any weight in Montana. The full faith and credit clause was never intended to force a state to permit illegal behavior just because that behavior is legal in some other state.
This whole idea of preemptively amending the Constitution is hysterical madness. The federal courts are going to decide this matter before this stupid amendment ever gets passed anyway. Sheez, the things people worry about.
Your driver's license analogy is flawed. First, a driver's license is different from a marriage license. A driver's license can be suspended or cancelled by the state at any time. A state can not cancel or suspend a marriage. Driving is considered a privelige, not a right. Marriage is considered a right.
A better analogy would be the age when people are allowed to marry.
It varies from state to state. For arguments sake, let's say it is 15 in Mass., and 17 in Montana. So, two people (male and female) get married at 15 in Mass. Parent's consent. Perfectly legal in Mass. She immediatly gets pregnant. They have a child. Then they move to Montana. Neither has turned 16 yet. They are both still only 15.
Can the state of Montana dissolve their marriage because they aren't of legal age (17) to marry in Montana? Can the state of Montana refuse to recognize their marriage?
Most judges (imho) would say no they can't. The constitution already has extra language in it protecting marriage (spouses can't be forced to testify against each other.) It is clear that marriage falls into a special category.
Given the activist nature of so many judges, I don't think it will be that hard to find one that is willing to extend the protections provided traditional marriages by the consistution's full faith and credit clause to a gay marriage that was legally established in another state.
It only takes one judge in each state to get the job done.
You're not exactly right there Sandy. Under current law, you can drive through Montana all night and day with a license from any of the other 49 states, and Montana must recognize that license as valid.
What's hysterical madness is what the Mass Supreme Court did last november - override 150 years of mass law on a whim, contrary to any regard for principled jurisprudence.
Given this craziness in our courts, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
And btw, the press is distorting Cheney's comments as in disagreement. The press is creating a myth that a constitutional amendment is against states rights. Actually the opposite, as a court will use 'full faith and credit' to overturn DOMA.
The 9th circus court of clowns has done worse, why not that?
"The federal courts are going to decide this matter before this stupid amendment ever gets passed anyway."
Isnt that the point? SHOULDNT THE PEOPLE DECIDE, NOT THE COURTS?