For My Buddy Grey One More Time - Civil Unions and Gay Marriage

[ QUOTE ]

The interesting thing here is that if a STATE legislature passed legislation that legalized gay marriage, I would have to consider that a valid democratic move and to be recognized by other states. I just have a problem with the judiciary manipulating the law to redefine marriage. I just don't think that there is enough popular support in any state to do this yet. California has come close, but it got [puns]Terminated...but, It'll be back...[/puns]

-Gryph

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/....ap/index.html

The California State Legislature passed a bill that would legalize same-sex marriage, and Schwarzenegger vetoed it, saying the issue should be decided by voters or the courts.

[etgryphon]

Read the link in my other post and take a look at Loving v. Virginia. That is why one states change in law to marriage with be applied to other states. The question of the "full faith and credit" clause has not been appied to marriage yet and their hasn't been any cases on it to my knowledge. I gaurentee that would come before the court. It is the only and only concern about the who thing.

-Gryph

[ QUOTE ]
Could a state fail to recognize a divorce --- for example imagine that a state believes that one can only get divorced for specific reasons. Would they have to recognize a divorce in another state that where none of the three reasons were met --- I would suspect that they would have to recognize it even if they found it morally reprehensible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Excellent question. Without doing a lot of research, I will say that it would likely come out as follows: If a state permits divorce (for reasons X, Y, and Z), then the concept of divorce is not repugnant to the public policy of that state. Therefore, if would have to give FF&C to a divorce on other grounds from another state.

Now, if a state were to abolish divorce entirely, then it might well come out differently.

[ QUOTE ]
Read the link in my other post and take a look at Loving v. Virginia. That is why one states change in law to marriage with be applied to other states. The question of the "full faith and credit" clause has not been appied to marriage yet and their hasn't been any cases on it to my knowledge.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sorry, but you are mistaken. The law is actually pretty well established in this area and there have been plenty of cases applying the FF&C clause in the context of marraige. There was one case I remember from the 1950s where a couple from North Carolina left their respective spouses, travelled to Nevada, stayed their long enough to establish residence under Nevada law, got divorces, got married to each other (legally in Nevada) and then went back to North Carolina. North Carolina prosecuted them for bigamy, successfully arguing in the Supreme Court that FF&C to the Nevada marriage did not apply.

In general, the law is that marriages from other states will be recognized, but they need not be where they are against the public policy of the state (usually ascertained by whether there is a statute prohibiting such marriages). The scenario where one state legalizes gay marriage and the gay couples from every other state can just go there, get married, and have it automatically recognized is simply not the law, and hasn't been for a long, long time. Other scenarios present closer questions, but this one simply does not.

[PITTM]

christians seem to get more mad when "marriage" is used for gay couples. they need to differentiate them from themselves because theyve been convinced that people who are gay are evil by some fictional texts...

rj

[Matty]

How is this thread for me?

[etgryphon]

[ QUOTE ]

I'm sorry, but you are mistaken. The law is actually pretty well established in this area and there have been plenty of cases applying the FF&C clause in the context of marraige. There was one case I remember from the 1950s where a couple from North Carolina left their respective spouses, travelled to Nevada, stayed their long enough to establish residence under Nevada law, got divorces, got married to each other (legally in Nevada) and then went back to North Carolina. North Carolina prosecuted them for bigamy, successfully arguing in the Supreme Court that FF&C to the Nevada marriage did not apply.


[/ QUOTE ]

Elliot,

I never said that the FF&C has been used to solidify marriage. Period. Look again at the link and it confirms it. The main bearing in the case is Loving v. Virgina which is the most important case in the US Supreme Court. Both the Gay Marriage and the Interracial Marriage proponents use the Equal Protection Clause to advance their cause. The gay marriage proponents are using the same playbook that was used for interracial marriage proponents.

Chief Justice Warren wrote:

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival."

Now he was only talking about as it pertains to race and the 14th amendement, but the same reasoning is being used in the New England Supreme Court that not providing gay marriage or civil union is violating the Equal Protection clauses of the gay communittees.

[ QUOTE ]

In general, the law is that marriages from other states will be recognized, but they need not be where they are against the public policy of the state (usually ascertained by whether there is a statute prohibiting such marriages). The scenario where one state legalizes gay marriage and the gay couples from every other state can just go there, get married, and have it automatically recognized is simply not the law, and hasn't been for a long, long time. Other scenarios present closer questions, but this one simply does not.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do not disagree with your analysis in one bit. It is just a stepping stone to overturn all the rules in the states. That is the only point that I am making.

Elliot, it just seems like you want to disagree on something...if I was unclear in my posts, I apologize and thank you for clarifying the issue.

Fact: FF&C clause has not been applied either way to marriage certs for or against. I am just calling the line that with THIS particular move, I think we will see a case that brings to bear the FF&C clause to bear in marriage. It is just a prediction and not settled.

-Gryph

[etgryphon]

[ QUOTE ]
How is this thread for me?

[/ QUOTE ]

Proposal?

-Gryph

[JackWhite]

[ QUOTE ]
christians seem to get more mad when "marriage" is used for gay couples. they need to differentiate them from themselves because theyve been convinced that people who are gay are evil by some fictional texts...


[/ QUOTE ]

So it is only Christians who oppose gay marriage? Maybe you are correct. Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton..all Christians, all oppose gay marriage.