posted
I've seen the "gay marriage" thread, but this is a diffeent take on the question. Under federal law, one state has to recognize marriages performed in another state or country. Massachusettes says gays can get married. 38 states say marriage is only between a man and a woman. So the laws of 38 states contradict the ruling in Massachusettes. Whose law will trump?
The only example I can think of that is any way similar would be minimum ages to get married. Rhode Island requires licencees to be 21 or have parental consent. Georgia will let you get married as young as 15 if there are children involved. Rhode Island does not have to offer marriage to 15 year olds, but it does have to recognize them if they got married in Georgia. However, just being 15 does not violate Rhode Island's definition of marriage.
posted
Yup, that's about it. However, don't be surprised to see a push for a new Federal Constitutional Amendment. And while Mass. may have to put up with gay marriage for a while, within 3 years it is expected to outlawed through a State Constitutional amendment and more than likely, until that passes, I'm sure that they will figure out a way to delay any implementation of the new law.
Posts: 171 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Heh. Does anyone else remember the last issue people were forced to resort to the "states' rights" argument to protect, since they had no other argument to justify their bigotry?
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is a legitimate states' rights issue though. Does the Constitution give the federal government power to tell states which marriages to recognize? I'm not sure it does. The power to regulate marriages is not enumerated in the Constitution.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
However, it has been interpretted by the courts that the Full Faith and Credit clause can be legislated by the Feds, and so the feds would most likely be able to legislate what would be a marriage for such purposes, under the current legal system. Unfortunately.
However, if a state were to choose to give marriage rights to homosexuals, and the federal government were to pass a law defining marriage otherwise, it is unlikely the feds would win in court, imo.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, Article IV, Section 1 says in full: "Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof." (emphasis added)
posted
I'm saying internal to the state, for instance if the Feds decided to sue saying the state couldn't allow Homosexuals to get married in the state.
Edit to add: of course, I'm not aware if suing would be an option open to the Federal government, but I'm sure its possible they'd try something along those lines.
posted
Oh, you're right on that count. Without a Constitutional amendment, Congress very likely could not prevent a state form allowing homosexual marriages. If such a law was passed, there would either be a facial challenge by a gay couple wanting to get married or a suit by a state that wants to allow homosexual marriage.
Congress can, however, make it so that one state does not have to recognize homosexual marriages fro another state. They'd almost definitely win there. (Edit: this is what I thought you meant two posts ago.)
posted
Yeah, I wasn't very clear on that. I was actually saying that in the first part of the post, then rambling on to the topic of internal state definitions in the second part Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
So gays could get married in Massachusettes but it would only be recognized by some of the states? Then, back to my example, could a 15 year old get married in Georgia, move to Rhode Island and be told the marriage was invalid because Rhode Island chose not to honor it? Being married changes the way a couple files their federal income taxes. Wouldn't it have to be all or nothing?
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nope. The federal government gets to say what falls under the full faith and credit clause and what doesn't.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wasn't it Clinton who signed that protection of marriage law stating that marriage was between a man and woman?
Posts: 346 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, Lalo, I remember that one. We had to overrule a bigoted Supreme Court with a Constitutional amendment, didn't we?
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nope. The then-current SupremeCourt first ruled that previous SupremeCourt rulings endorsing 'separate but equal' did not work in practice: ie that 'separate but equal' intrinsicly created inequality, and hence must be struck down. Much later, Congress passed laws overriding various state laws which enforced segregation. The federal laws were then in turn upheld by the SupremeCourt. ------------------------------------------------- Given that the three activist Justices of this current SupremeCourt (Scalia, Thomas, and Kennedy) pretty much don't care about the law or the Constitution -- except to the extent that their own or previous illogic can be used to twist out weird interpretations favorable to their own prejudices -- and that conservatives ChiefJustice Rehnquist and Justice O'Conner have a very strong tendency to rule in favor of state laws which conflict with federal laws, I doubt that a federal law supporting state legislatures' position on marriage would be struck down. Might even have some or all of the remaining four justices voting to uphold the federal law.
And if a federal law were passed to forbid states from allowing marriage between homosexual couples, the current SupremeCourt would probably hold it to be constitutional. Only 'probably' because -- unlike the Gang of Three who pick&choose between conflicting laws based only on what they want -- Rehnquist is a true conservative and Justice O'Connor often bases her decisions on practicality, though both also have displayed a strong bias towards States'Rights. So either or both could easily rule in favor of states which decide to allow marriage between homosexuals. Which still wouldn't settle the matter because Breyer, Ginsberg, Souter, and Stevens tend to think deeply upon the legal precedents they create for future SupremeCourt decisions. A federal law banning marriages between homosexuals would contain many side issues inre the balancing of individual, state, and federal rights; and so presents a very dangerous knife's edge to the future of Constitutional Law. ------------------------------------------------- Personally, I think requiring sex between potential partners to gain the legal privileges of marriage is government-encouraged prostitution. Whether prospective marriage couples are heterosexual, homosexual, or celibate with each other is none of the governments business.
posted
aspectre, I believe that Maccabeus was referring to the fourteenth amendment, which ended slavery, and the fifteenth amendment, which gave black males the vote.
"Seperate but Equal" came later.
Posts: 413 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The 13th Amendment ended slavery; and theoretically involuntary servitude: though corporations were -- and to various extents still are -- allowed to own musicians, actors, athletes, scientists, engineers, etc. And one shouldn't forget sharecropping or the turpentine farms and prison labor sold to the sometimes highest but always the most politically connected bidder.
Under the new ?still proposed? bankruptcy law, most people (ie those who don't have the leverage of owing millions upon millions of dollars) who can't pay off their creditors can find the fruit of their future labor sold to the highest bidder. Naturally, stockholders who own corporations which go bankrupt defaulting millions, hundreds of millions, or tens of billions of dollars in credit have no personal responsiblity whatsoever to pay any of it back.
Actually, that SupremeCourt just ignored the 14thAmendment's guarantee of 'equal treatment under the law' by creating the "Separate but Equal" doctrine out of thin air. Interestingly, the original "the Congress and legislatures which passed the 14thAmendment didn't really mean that negroes should receive the same treatment as whites" argument was not presented by a Justice or Justices, but rather in a preamble written by the Waite SupremeCourt Clerk who earlier had been booted out of the GrantAdministration for corruption. And interestingly enough, this same former railroad president was also the one who granted corporations 'personhood' under the 14thAmendment by preamble to a ruling, though all previous SupremeCourt decisions ran counter to such a statement, and though none of the Justices involved in that particular ruling had made such a statement in their written arguments. So combined, their rulings meant that non-living corporations were granted human rights under the 14thAmendment, but humans with the "wrong"color of skin were granted "separate but equal" rights which in practice were the same as no rights whatsoever. BTW - That was the ?Fuller? "Separate but Equal" SupremeCourt which issued the ruling cited as precedent by Justice Scalia and accepted by the majority to halt the Florida recount during the 2000 presidential election.
Similarly, the 15thAmendment guaranteeing voting rights was earlier overruled by a ?different? SupremeCourt, in favor of "States'Rights" allowing states to be the only ones allowed to set the standards of voter qualification. So state legislatures passed ridiculous laws like: only people who had voted or were qualified to vote in the state before the CivilWar -- and before the 15thAmendment -- or who were direct descendents of such voters were legally entitled to vote. Kinda reminds ya of what 38 current state legislatures are doing presently, don't it?
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
