Full Faith and Credit and Public Policy

[Ravi]

Of course as you probably know the Constitution has always been subject to interpretation by the Courts, and the current state of the law is that there is an exception. There is not exception stated in the Constitution, but there are no exceptions stated to free speech either, but those exist.

That's true, but the exceptions exist because you can't incite a riot, i.e., because they present a danger to society at large. Allowing gays to marry, or have civil unions if you'd rather, presents no such danger.

 

[Care4all]

There are many states, more than half, that allow marriage between first or second cousins. There are also a handful of states that will allow marriage between the immediate family, and some of those states stipulate that the couple must first be sterilized to prevent offspring.

Tauri Aphelion

i had no idea!!!!!!

 

[Steerpike]

Allowing gays to marry, or have civil unions if you'd rather, presents no such danger.

That's true, but nevertheless the exception exists.

 

[Ravi]

That's true, but nevertheless the exception exists.

No bearing on the topic at hand, IMO.

 

[Ravi]

btw, SP...what was the case in the OP thread about?

 

[Steerpike]

No bearing on the topic at hand, IMO.

Sure it does...in fact that is what we're talking about. I haven't said anything about whether the exception was good or not. Only that it is there.

 

[Steerpike]

btw, SP...what was the case in the OP thread about?

Which one? Many of the cases in this area of law are employment cases, if memory serves.

 

[Ravi]

Sure it does...in fact that is what we're talking about. I haven't said anything about whether the exception was good or not. Only that it is there.

Please explain exactly how it is relevant. I don't see it. The only way it could be relevant is if you could prove gays getting married is a clear danger to society like yelling fire in a crowded theater is.

 

[Ravi]

Which one? Many of the cases in this area of law are employment cases, if memory serves.

The one you posted to start the thread.

 

[Steerpike]

Please explain exactly how it is relevant. I don't see it. The only way it could be relevant is if you could prove gays getting married is a clear danger to society like yelling fire in a crowded theater is.

It's relevant because the Supreme Court has established the precedent. The Court has couched it in terms of "public policy" of the forum State, not whether it is a danger or not (and there are other exceptions to free speech, like defamation). The fact that the precedent is out there, in our legal system, means it is law that can be used in subsequent cases.

If Full Faith and Credit of gay marriage goes to the Court I guarantee you the side against it will use these precedents to make their arguments, and with the current Supreme Court they are not unlikely to win.

 

[Steerpike]

The one you posted to start the thread.

I talked about 4 cases in the original post. One was tort-related I think. Pretty sure the others are employment-related.

 

[Ravi]

It's relevant because the Supreme Court has established the precedent. The Court has couched it in terms of "public policy" of the forum State, not whether it is a danger or not (and there are other exceptions to free speech, like defamation). The fact that the precedent is out there, in our legal system, means it is law that can be used in subsequent cases.

If Full Faith and Credit of gay marriage goes to the Court I guarantee you the side against it will use these precedents to make their arguments, and with the current Supreme Court they are not unlikely to win.

Okay, I know almost nothing about the law, but it seems to me the Loving decision is also precedent...maybe I'm mixing up apples and oranges here.

I also think employment practices are not the same as the right for two people to enter into a civil union.

 

[Steerpike]

Okay, I know almost nothing about the law, but it seems to me the Loving decision is also precedent...maybe I'm mixing up apples and oranges here.

I also think employment practices are not the same as the right for two people to enter into a civil union.

Yeah, Loving is a precedent, but not on the issue we're talking about. It's a 14th Amendment decision.

As for the employment v. civil union argument, the Court didn't limit its statement about the exception to Full Faith and Credit to employment, and it's been applied in the marriage context in other cases. Unless the Court overrules the precedent to the extent that the exception is established, it will exist. And my money says the current court would be apt to keep the exception and apply it to gay marriage, or else refuse to hear the issue all together and let the state courts decide, and you KNOW some of the states would invoke the exception.

 

[jillian]

Yeah, Loving is a precedent, but not on the issue we're talking about. It's a 14th Amendment decision.

Loving said that marriage is a fundamental right that can't be iinfringed upon by the state. So, yes, it is an equal protection question, as are questions about gay marriage, but it also said such decisions are entitled to a right of privacy which the state can't interfere with.

Employment cases wouldn't be relevant to the question, particularly.

 

[Ravi]

Yeah, Loving is a precedent, but not on the issue we're talking about. It's a 14th Amendment decision.

As for the employment v. civil union argument, the Court didn't limit its statement about the exception to Full Faith and Credit to employment, and it's been applied in the marriage context in other cases. Unless the Court overrules the precedent to the extent that the exception is established, it will exist. And my money says the current court would be apt to keep the exception and apply it to gay marriage, or else refuse to hear the issue all together and let the state courts decide, and you KNOW some of the states would invoke the exception.

But the only context are things that don't actually exist anymore. How did it hold up against interracial marriage? Answer: Not at all.

 

[tauriaphelion]

But the only context are things that don't actually exist anymore. How did it hold up against interracial marriage? Answer: Not at all.

Interracial marriage isn't the only context, as i posted a few pages back. There are plenty of states where you can marry your cousin brother sister whatever ... and these states choose to recognize it. However, other states don't have to and won't recognize said marriages.

I do not know the statistics on how often people actually marry their brother or sister, despite the stipulation of sterilization many have, in those states. So I am not positive on how recent the relevant cases were, but the laws are still on the books. I am not saying it is right under the constitution... but that is the way it is until the supreme court decides to overturn the previous precedents set.

Tauri Aphelion

 

[Ravi]

Interracial marriage isn't the only context, as i posted a few pages back. There are plenty of states where you can marry your cousin brother sister whatever ... and these states choose to recognize it. However, other states don't have to and won't recognize said marriages.

I do not know the statistics on how often people actually marry their brother or sister, despite the stipulation of sterilization many have, in those states. So I am not positive on how recent the relevant cases were, but the laws are still on the books. I am not saying it is right under the constitution... but that is the way it is until the supreme court decides to overturn the previous precedents set.

Tauri Aphelion

In what state can you marry your brother? What state asks people married in another state if they are cousins?

 

[jillian]

In what state can you marry your brother? What state asks people married in another state if they are cousins?

There isn't one. and there isn't one.

 

[Ravi]

There isn't one. and there isn't one.

I figured as much.

 

[tauriaphelion]

"Twenty-five states prohibit marriages between first cousins. Six states allow first cousin marriage under certain circumstances, and North Carolina allows first cousin marriage but prohibits double-cousin marriage. States generally recognize marriages of first cousins married in a state where such marriages are legal." (quoted from the National Conference of State Legislature's web site).

It says GENERALLY meaning not always, and I'm sorry i admit i remembered incorrectly about the immediate family thing. however some states require u not be capable of reproduction to be able to marry your first cousin is what i was thinking of.

Tauri Aphelion