Appropriate ruling

[RetiredGySgt]

This ruling is really the right one to make. Prior to Massachussetts making same sex marraige legal though it could be argued differently depending on our treaties with Canada.

As to the State barring same sex through legislation, they can not do so in the case of other States anymore. The Constitution is clear, if a State has a law allowing said marriage the other States must recognize it, as to foreign marriages, that could depend on reaties.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080202/us_nm/marriage_gays_newyork_dc

There was a movement in Congress to declare that marriage was not part of the requirement of the Constitutional requirement of States to honor other States in that manner. It died, and I would suggest it would take an Amendment to make such a law anyway.

Bad idea all around. My personal Opinion is mass should bar same sex marriages, but unless they do Constitutionally all the States have to honor them. Though I suspect that may go to court.

 

[Steerpike]

This ruling is really the right one to make. Prior to Massachussetts making same sex marraige legal though it could be argued differently depending on our treaties with Canada.

As to the State barring same sex through legislation, they can not do so in the case of other States anymore. The Constitution is clear, if a State has a law allowing said marriage the other States must recognize it, as to foreign marriages, that could depend on reaties.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080202/us_nm/marriage_gays_newyork_dc

There was a movement in Congress to declare that marriage was not part of the requirement of the Constitutional requirement of States to honor other States in that manner. It died, and I would suggest it would take an Amendment to make such a law anyway.

Bad idea all around. My personal Opinion is mass should bar same sex marriages, but unless they do Constitutionally all the States have to honor them. Though I suspect that may go to court.

There are limits to Full Faith and Credit, though.

A couple quotes from the Supreme Court:

Our precedent differentiates the credit owed to laws (legislative measures and common law) and to judgments. . . . The Full Faith and Credit Clause does not compel "a state to substitute the statutes of other states for its own statutes dealing with a subject matter concerning which it is competent to legislate.

and

"It has often been recognized by this Court that there are some limitations upon the extent to which a state may be required by the full faith and credit clause to enforce even the judgment of another state in contravention of its own statutes or policy. . . . And in the case of statutes, the extrastate effect of which Congress has not prescribed, as it may under the constitutional provision, we think the conclusion is unavoidable that the full faith and credit clause does not require one 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."

As you say, though, the issue will keep winding through the courts on gay marriage.

 

[pegwinn]

I don't see a practical way around not abiding by other states if they allow same sex unions.

If Texas decides that it won't recognise same sex weddings performed in Mass then they are guilty of discrimination.

The best alternative is to do away with legal marraige altogether. Let the churches have it.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I don't see a practical way around not abiding by other states if they allow same sex unions.

If Texas decides that it won't recognise same sex weddings performed in Mass then they are guilty of discrimination.

The best alternative is to do away with legal marraige altogether. Let the churches have it.

I agree, the Government should remove " Marriage" and replace it with ' Civil Union". Marriage belongs to religion then and the Government regulates the assets and property/kids of couples through Civil Unions.

 

[Gunny]

I agree, the Government should remove " Marriage" and replace it with ' Civil Union". Marriage belongs to religion then and the Government regulates the assets and property/kids of couples through Civil Unions.

That would actually solve the entire issue. It was proposed before the "we demand to be called normal" flamers wouldn't hear of it. It was marriage or nothing. So they got nothing.

And yeah, it's going to go to court. We just voted a couple of years ago when all this was making the front page on a law that defines marriage as between a man and a woman.

Not that it would surprise me if it happened, but IMO it is wrong that one state's laws can trump another's; which. is what it will come down to.