Posted on 04/21/2015 9:19:37 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
But if one state bans homo-marriage doesn't the same principle apply that all states must ban?
Or the simple legal decision that a heterosexual woman who puts the kid up for adoption to a two parent family so the kid has a mom and dad can’t contest the kid going to two women.
Let me say up front that I don't think gay marriage is an equal protection issue, and that the court should not rule to compel states to accept it. But this question about how can the 14th mean something the adopters never considered is worth answering.
It happens all the time that a law is applied to facts that weren't considered before. Especially in the case of something like the 14th, which encoded a very general concept into the Constitution, the rule set up by a law can be applied to many sets of facts. What the legislators thought about at the time is not what matters. What the text of the rule they established says is what matters. The only time intent is an issue is when the text isn't clear and may be read more than one way.
To simplify, if I'm the original drafters I may want to make a law to protect ex-slaves so I make one that says everyone must be treated equally. But once I make that law that's what it says. Everyone must be treated equally. Not just slaves, and not just about discrimination against blacks. If I wanted something more narrow then I need to write it more narrowly.
Not true. States with laws against SS marriage have refused to recognize them. Several SS couples have gotten married in SS states then tried to get a divorce in hetero states and have been told that their marriage is not recognized therefore to go back to the state they came from to get a divorce.
Exactly.
God created, defined, and instituted marriage at the beginning of the Creation.
Neither the federal government, nor the states, nor any man, has any legitimate authority to redefine it.
That's an odd question. My answer is: No. No it does not.
And no matter WHAT the Supreme Court, or anyone else says, I will not divorce my wife and marry a man.
Think of it as "taking one for the team"...
It shouldn’t. But I suspect the Supreme Court will say it does.
” Will Kennedy and the four liberal Dems on the court force gay marriage on the states?
And if so will any states pass laws that defy the order? “
Great questions
That’s what I think will happen, for mostly the same reason. The rest of the reason being that not enough of the SC even actively opposes it, on any ground, and enough of them actively support it, and will always vote ideologically.
wonder if that strategy could apply to the second ammendment
Thanks!
I was fixing to raise the same point!
Why is the legal argument not a 10th Ammendment one?
I believe that. I think I was answering a different question (my mistake), that being how do states handle the young and "inter-family" marriages that are outside of the criteria for marriage in their state.
The interstate handling of homo marriage/divorce issues will probably be litigated for a generation or three before the (legal) dust settles.
No. The full faith principle is that other states are bound to recognize the actions, not the prohibitions or conditions. See for example the age and consent limits for getting married - which are somewhat variable among the states, with no demand for uniformity. But, once married in one state, the condition of marriage (at least the form that has been normal and common for a couple thousand years) is recognized in all the states.
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.
He voted against Hagel, while "true conservative" Rand Paul voted FOR Hagel.
"Tea Party" groups seem to suffer amnesia about that.
“They recognize the marriage as valid. Full faith and credit applies (Article IV).”
I don't think that is true in all states, at least in the case of first-cousin marriages.
The 10A merely stated a truth. The states as independent countries relinquished certain powers to the government of their creation, most notably those in Article I Section 10. They obviously kept that which they didn't give away.
The states would have given away very little, had the constitution not provided for a senate of the states. The senate was the institution to enforce the 10th.
<>Was the 10th Amendment repealed?<>
The 17A effectively repealed the 10A.
I just did some reading on how states have traditionally handled marriage, and concluded that my original answer was wrong. States applied “conflict of laws” principles to marriage, taking precedence over full faith and credit.
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.