Full Faith and Credit and Public Policy

[Gunny]

So?

"So?" What?

You're trying to turn this into an argument about homosexuality, using one of the classic, irrelevant examples to try and make your case.

Specific laws are irrelevant to the discussion of the full faith and credit clause. What society accepts and does not accept is also irrelevant to the topic.

If I have a CCW permit from the State of Texas is it valid in NYC? No.

If I have a Texas driver's license and move to FL can I drive on that license until it expires? No.

If I have a truckload of fruits of veggies can I get across the CA border on the interstate with them? No.

If I legally own assault rifles in Texas, can I take them to CA? No.

States do not blindly adhere to whatever is legal in another state just because whatever the case may be originated there. No difference on the gay issue.

 

[Ravi]

I'm not trying to turn this into an argument about homosexuality...that was the point of SP's original post. He's arguing about gay marriage.

And all those licenses you are correct about. However, marriage licenses are recognized by other states.

 

[tauriaphelion]

I can drive in any other state on my Georgia license i know because i do it... and they have to accept that. The only time they can demand i have a license belonging to that state is if my residence is in that state. I also think thats kind of irrelevant to the marriage license debate. As a heterosexual couple gets married in one state and doesn't have to remarry every single time they move. That particular point just kind of seems like apples and oranges to me personally=)

Tauri Aphelion

 

[Gunny]

I'm not trying to turn this into an argument about homosexuality...that was the point of SP's original post. He's arguing about gay marriage.

And all those licenses you are correct about. However, marriage licenses are recognized by other states.

After the Constututional Amnedment to define marriage failed, how many states produced legislation defining marriage? It was a referendum vote, meaning the people of the State of Texas vote specifically on the issue, it was not just something arbitrarily passed in Austin.

State law defines marriage as between a man and a woman.

States may very well recognize marriages in other states because until now, they were not in question. Gays could not legally marry anywhere, so states had no reason to not recognize laws that were similar to or did not contradict their own. Now apparently, they do.

 

[Gunny]

I can drive in any other state on my Georgia license i know because i do it... and they have to accept that. The only time they can demand i have a license belonging to that state is if my residence is in that state. I also think thats kind of irrelevant to the marriage license debate. As a heterosexual couple gets married in one state and doesn't have to remarry every single time they move. That particular point just kind of seems like apples and oranges to me personally=)

Tauri Aphelion

Look again at what I said. You most certainly cannot move to another state and drive on your current license until it expires. Most states give you 90 days to re-register your vehicle and get a new driver's license.

There is no marriage license debate. The debate concerns full faith and credit clause and licenses states do not accept are examples of how states are not mandated to recognize licenses from other states that conflict with their own.

That would be comparing apples to apples.

 

[tauriaphelion]

lol I can too if i don't change my address... i know plenty of people that drive on licenses from other states. They live here, they work here, and they have for almost a year. The difference is they haven't filed the paper work for a change of residence. my point was there are ways around that.

I was also under the impression that this was about Full Faith and Credit being applied to Gay marriage. I thought it was a continuation of the other thread...


Tauri Aphelion

 

[Gunny]

lol I can too if i don't change my address... i know plenty of people that drive on licenses from other states. They live here, they work here, and they have for almost a year. The difference is they haven't filed the paper work for a change of residence. my point was there are ways around that.

I was also under the impression that this was about Full Faith and Credit being applied to Gay marriage. I thought it was a continuation of the other thread...


Tauri Aphelion

I guarantee you they are doing it illegally unless they are in the military. So there is NOT a legal way around it. All you're saying is they haven't gotten caught. I'll give you THAT one.

Two gays who are married in MA can come to Texas and call themselves Adam and Steve all they want using your reasoning. But they will not be legally married in the eyes of the state of Texas and their claims to any rights or privileges married persons allegedly have can be denied.

 

[Larkinn]

Interracial marriage is not comparable to gay marriage. Race is not determined by behavior. The comparison is ridiculous.

Sex isn't determined by behavior either. But yet we only allow one sex to marry males and only allow the other sex to marry females.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Sex isn't determined by behavior either. But yet we only allow one sex to marry males and only allow the other sex to marry females.

While I am on the side of enforcing the law through out the Country, you are wrong. Sex IS a behavior. Or it is a state of being one sex or another depending on which thing you mean.

One does not have to participate in sex to live. It is a behavior one CHOSES to do unless raped. One CHOSES whom to have sex with as well, again unless raped.

 

[Gunny]

Sex isn't determined by behavior either. But yet we only allow one sex to marry males and only allow the other sex to marry females.

You mean sexual orientation? Or gender? Gender is determined by genetics. Homosexuality is in fact defined only by aberrant behavior. There is no other REAL evidence that proves it is determined by anything else.

Our society's laws are based on normal sexual behavior as defined by normal biological function. It's as simple as that. I have no intention of getting into yet another of your convoluted arguments that dance all over the place attempting to claim it is anything other than what it is.

 

[Gunny]

While I am on the side of enforcing the law through out the Country, you are wrong. Sex IS a behavior. Or it is a state of being one sex or another depending on which thing you mean.

One does not have to participate in sex to live. It is a behavior one CHOSES to do unless raped. One CHOSES whom to have sex with as well, again unless raped.

The law IS enforced. What you are on the side of is a Federal law being forced upon all of the states rather than allowing them to determine their own laws, respectively, as is their legal right granted by the US Constitution.

The law -- the US Constitution -- is not enforced/violated when the Fedral government usurps the powers it grants to the states by the Federal government.

 

[Larkinn]

While I am on the side of enforcing the law through out the Country, you are wrong. Sex IS a behavior. Or it is a state of being one sex or another depending on which thing you mean.

Being born male or female isn't really a behavior.

One does not have to participate in sex to live. It is a behavior one CHOSES to do unless raped. One CHOSES whom to have sex with as well, again unless raped.

And wanting equal voting rights, not to be beaten by the cops, not to have segregated schools, etc, etc, are behaviors as well.

 

[Larkinn]

You mean sexual orientation? Or gender? Gender is determined by genetics. Homosexuality is in fact defined only by aberrant behavior. There is no other REAL evidence that proves it is determined by anything else.

I mean sex. I.e. biological male or female. Gender is something else.

Our society's laws are based on normal sexual behavior as defined by normal biological function. It's as simple as that.

Umm, no they aren't actually. Maybe 100 years ago they were, but statutes outlawing Sodomy just got struck down. There aren't any laws governing normal "sexual behavior". There are laws governing who you can marry.

I have no intention of getting into yet another of your convoluted arguments that dance all over the place attempting to claim it is anything other than what it is.

Nice circular argument there Gunny. What a surprise.

 

[Gunny]

I mean sex. I.e. biological male or female. Gender is something else.

Sex is behavior.

Umm, no they aren't actually. Maybe 100 years ago they were, but statutes outlawing Sodomy just got struck down. There aren't any laws governing normal "sexual behavior". There are laws governing who you can marry.

Those laws being based on normal sexual behavior. A law being stricken that outlawed aberrant sexual behavior does not validate that behavior as normal. It merely means that participating in the aberrant sexual behavior defined by "sodomy laws" is no longer punishable by law.

Nice circular argument there Gunny. What a surprise.

Nothing circular about it. My argument is based on logic and fact.

 

[tauriaphelion]

Just to throw this out there... It may or may not be relevant to the debate of whether sex is a biological process or a choice, but homosexual tendencies are present in a variety of other animals. Dogs and cows i know for sure. I personally don't think a dog or a cow has the higher reasoning to choose who they are physically attracted to they just are and they go at it. Which would indicate to me personally that sexual orientation is not a choice.

I will grant that with humans whether to act on it or not is a choice. I am attracted to both males and females, and yet i choose to date males. However, to say well you have the choice not to act on it is kind of like saying well you have the choice to not love your wife. It's something you would probably do regardless of law or public opinion. And this is kind of off topic from full faith and credit...

Tauri Aphelion

 

[Larkinn]

Sex is behavior.

Being born male or female is behavior? Please do explain that.

Those laws being based on normal sexual behavior. A law being stricken that outlawed aberrant sexual behavior does not validate that behavior as normal. It merely means that participating in the aberrant sexual behavior defined by "sodomy laws" is no longer punishable by law.

So the state should be able to allow and disallow things based on "normality"? So much for freedom from the state

Nothing circular about it. My argument is based on logic and fact.

Circular logic.

 

[jillian]

Sex is behavior.

So consenting adults who are attracted only to others of the same sex should be celibate because you don't approve of their behavior? Or should be deniedthe right to marry, etc., because you don't approve of their behavior? or should be denied full faith and credit if they are married (a status determination which is ALWAYS granted) because you don't approve of their behavior?

 

[tauriaphelion]

Just to insert one last nail in the coffin of this debate. I found what happened to the law once it passed committee vote and went to the house floor it also passed there and president Bill Clinton did in fact sign it into law. I found a later NY times article covering the controversy over him signing the law. This law in effect states:
1. the Federal government will not give Federal benefits to same sex couples.

2. States have a right to refuse to recognize gay marriages from other states.

So being that there is a federal law passed by congress to specifically allow it i would have to say that despite Full Faith and Credit due to a law that congress passed it is unfortunately true that states can ignore gay marriages from other states.

Yet again I am not saying it should be this way. I am just saying its the way it is.

Tauri Aphelion

 

[Steerpike]

So being that there is a federal law passed by congress to specifically allow it i would have to say that despite Full Faith and Credit due to a law that congress passed it is unfortunately true that states can ignore gay marriages from other states.

Yet again I am not saying it should be this way. I am just saying its the way it is.

Tauri Aphelion

Of course, federal statute doesn't trump the Constitution. The Constitution explicitly gives Congress some power over Full Faith and Credit, but it would be interesting to see how this played out in Court. I suppose the Supreme Court could adopt the view that it is a political question, but who knows...