The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    To register, turn off your VPN; you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

Utah's Marriage Fight Continues

hotatlboi said:
Then those sites would be wrong.

More evidence on this page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_Faith_and_Credit_Clause

In regards to interracial marriage (most prominent state disagreement on marriage prior to gay marriage), you had the same situation. Some states did not recognize the interracial marriages of other states. They were never forced to do so by the FFACC.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/17/us/bans-on-interracial-unions-offer-perspective-on-gay-ones.html

My reading of this from other legal scholars indicate that construct was correct.
Click to expand...

If he means that the full faith and credit clause has never applied to marriage, he is incorrect. Full faith and credit is why almost all states have always recognized marriages performed in other states even though those marriages would not have been legal in their state. The glaring exception was "interracial" marriage, but it is the exception that proves the rule. Even states which don't have common law marriage recognize those married under common law as married in their states if they move there. No source I can find denies this.

If he merely means that there has never been a federal court case where one state was required to recognize a marriage performed/contracted in another state, that's true -- but only because the full faith and credit clause has been honored so that the issue has never been presented that way. If the full faith and credit clause weren't honored, we'd certainly find laws requiring people to be "re"-married when they moved to a new state. But what we do find, in state court case after court case concerning marriage, is the assumption that a marriage performed in another state was valid regardless of the laws in the second state -- they don't come out and say "full faith ad credit clause", they just grant full faith and credit.

The only times full faith and credit have not been given have been with "interracial" and now gay marriage, and those are not being decided on the basis of the full faith and credit clause because they are being argued on a far more basic level, that of individual rights. Even Judge Black didn't directly reference the full faith and credit clause, but he implied it in his ruling on listing of a surviving partner as spouse.

In other words, we don't find court rulings on the matter because in the cases where that clause has been violated, the matter has been settled on far more basic issues.
 
Breaking:

U.S. to Recognize Utah Gay Marriages Despite State Stance [New York Times]
Click to expand...

Also http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/201...federal-government-attorney-general-says?lite :

The federal government will recognize marriages performed in Utah after a judge struck down the state’s same-sex marriage ban, Attorney General Holder said Friday, noting that the newly-wedded gay couples “should not be asked to endure uncertainty regarding their status” as the legal challenges unfold.
Click to expand...
 
I don't know if this got posted yet, I scanned thru the posts, supper getting close. But Holder says they are still married. Guess that settles it?

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/holder-us-recognizes-utah-same-sex-marriages

The Rachel Maddow Show / Equality

Holder: Feds recognize Utah’s same-sex marriages
01/10/14 02:29 PM

The legal status of same-sex married couples in Utah has become a little murky in recent days. Attorney General Eric Holder tried to bring some clarity to the issue this afternoon.

Last month, a federal court struck down Utah’s ban on marriage equality, immediately opening the door to equal-marriage rights statewide. Roughly 1,300 couples took advantage of the opportunity and tied the legally recognized knot.
Click to expand...
 
palbert said:
Breaking:

U.S. to Recognize Utah Gay Marriages Despite State Stance.

Also http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/201...federal-government-attorney-general-says?lite :
Click to expand...

That is so cool!

Ironically, the Utah gay marriages will be legal in the 17 states which recognize gay marriage, but not in the state where they were originally performed.


Rolyo85 said:
Just saw that. It's a beautiful middle finger in the face of Utah bigots.
Click to expand...

Yes, exactly.

One of the characteristics of bigotry is that it is self-perpetuating and inbreeding. It usually require outside influence to overcome.
 
Kulindahr said:
Full faith and credit is why almost all states have always recognized marriages performed in other states even though those marriages would not have been legal in their state. The glaring exception was "interracial" marriage, but it is the exception that proves the rule.
Click to expand...

Wrong. Indeed it proves that the full faith and credit clause does not and did not apply to marriage, because if it had, the states would have been obligated to recognize all such marriages.

Kulindahr said:
Even states which don't have common law marriage recognize those married under common law as married in their states if they move there.
Click to expand...
IF there is no strong policy disagreement with the marriage.
 
hotatlboi said:
Wrong. Indeed it proves that the full faith and credit clause does not and did not apply to marriage, because if it had, the states would have been obligated to recognize all such marriages.
Click to expand...

So because it was always taken for granted, it doesn't apply?

That's kind of like saying that because no one has been ticketed for exceeding the speed limit, no one is honoring it.
 
Kulindahr said:
So because it was always taken for granted, it doesn't apply?
Click to expand...

It never applied. The states were always free to not recognize any marriages that conflicted with their laws, and they did so. They did so in more cases than interracial marriages as well, incestuous and underage marriages are other areas where states have rejected out of state marriages.
 
hotatlboi said:
It never applied. The states were always free to not recognize any marriages that conflicted with their laws, and they did so. They did so in more cases than interracial marriages as well, incestuous and underage marriages are other areas where states have rejected out of state marriages.
Click to expand...

I read about such cases, and they were held not on any disagreement of laws but because such marriages went against the common law. There were citations dating back into the 1600s (I guess maybe not so long back when cases were from the early 1800s).

Given that marriages are acts of the several states, the full faith and credit clause obviously applies.
 
Kulindahr said:
Utah and Indiana are providing quite the spectacle.
Click to expand...

I don't know what SCOTUS was thinking, but it was a BIG mistake throwing in the wrench like that after even the conservative 10th denied a stay three times. Virginia is going to be the next state to go through this process, only now it has a Democratic administration :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top