Full Faith and Credit and Public Policy

Discussion in 'Law and Justice System' started by Steerpike, May 30, 2008.

  1. Steerpike
    Offline

    Steerpike VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2007
    Messages:
    1,847
    Thanks Received:
    182
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +182
    Jillian and I were talking about this in another thread. There are a number of cases in the various circuits, but I'll stick to the Supreme Court decisions.

    Bradford Electric Light Co. v. Clapper 286 U.S. 145 (1932)

    This is still the leading example case of its type according to the Horn Book on the subject. In a dispute between Vermont and New Hampshire, the Court "recognized tthat a court might refuse to enforce a foreign cause of action if obnoxious to its policy..."

    By foreign they meant another state.


    Pacific Employers Inc. Co. v. Industrial Accident Commission 306 U.S. 493 (1939)

    "While the Court examined the conflicting interests of the states, it simply held that the Full Faith and Credit Clause did not require a state to ignore its policy to enforce another state's statute."

    In a later case citing to Pacific, in 1955, the Court noted that it had, in Pacific, "recognized that Full Faith and Credit did not require application of a foreign statute that conflicts with the policy of the forum." Again, by 'foreign' they were referring to another state.


    Nevada v. Hall 440 U.S. 410 (1979) the Court held that California could refuse to give Full Faith and Credit to a Nevada act under the reasoning that the Nevada act was "obnoxious" to the policies of California.
     
  2. RetiredGySgt
    Offline

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,561
    Thanks Received:
    5,900
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +8,978
    Not the same as Marriage. What next? Allowing Texas to ignore Utah Birth Certificates because they do not like the religion of the group? Either a State recognizes marriage or it does not. If a State wants to ignore the marriages of gays from Massachusetts it has to ignore ALL marriages from that State.
     
  3. Steerpike
    Offline

    Steerpike VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2007
    Messages:
    1,847
    Thanks Received:
    182
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +182
    The Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution doesn't distinguish between marriage and other acts or judgments. And no, to ignore gay marriage you wouldn't have to ignore all marriages from a particular state. That's a baseless assertion.
     
  4. Steerpike
    Offline

    Steerpike VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2007
    Messages:
    1,847
    Thanks Received:
    182
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +182
    Here is a quote from a Slate article:

    In fact, I remember when people in favor of gay marriage in a particular state were making this exact argument to counter the conservatives - noting that just because one state allows it not every state will have to recognize it.
     
  5. RetiredGySgt
    Offline

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,561
    Thanks Received:
    5,900
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +8,978
    Whats baseless is your assertion that States can pick and chose what marriages to recognize. So when a balck man marries a white woman and it was "foreign" to the South in the 60's, did they get to IGNORE the Marriage?
     
  6. Steerpike
    Offline

    Steerpike VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2007
    Messages:
    1,847
    Thanks Received:
    182
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +182
    Read the last post with the article from Slate.

    The author is Dahlia Lithwick. A lawyer and one of their senior editors.

    You simply have the facts wrong. Period.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  7. Gunny
    Offline

    Gunny Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2004
    Messages:
    44,689
    Thanks Received:
    6,753
    Trophy Points:
    198
    Location:
    The Republic of Texas
    Ratings:
    +6,770
    You're missing the point. Texas has a law. voted on by referendum that states marriage is a union that exists solely between a man and a woman.

    The legal precedent set is that states do NOT have to honor conflicting laws of other states.

    You can argue until you're blue in the face about it, but the fact remains THAT is how it stands from a legal standpoint until or unless Congress or the Supremes steal THAT authority from the states as they have so many other.
     
  8. RetiredGySgt
    Offline

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,561
    Thanks Received:
    5,900
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +8,978
    Wrong again. Full Faith and Credit is clear and precise. Federal Authority trumps Satte Authority every single time.

    Told ya Jillian, this si why we need something specific. Because the masses think it is ok to ignore anything they do not like. Get rid of State Sponsored Marriage and replace it with Civil Unions. Thinking that it is ok to ignore the legal acts of one State because you do not like them is going to tear us apart.
     
  9. Steerpike
    Offline

    Steerpike VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2007
    Messages:
    1,847
    Thanks Received:
    182
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +182
    Unfortunately for you, and as stated in excerpt you ignored, the fact is courts have been doing this for a long time, and the Supreme Court has specifically endorsed it at times. So obviously there are exceptions to Full Faith and Credit.
     
  10. Ravi
    Offline

    Ravi Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2008
    Messages:
    81,365
    Thanks Received:
    12,696
    Trophy Points:
    2,205
    Location:
    Hating Hatters
    Ratings:
    +29,806
    Which states allow polygamy, miscegenation, or consanguinity?
     

Share This Page