Democratic Underground - Actually, they DO have to recognize the marriage...

Reply #14: Actually, they DO have to recognize the marriage... [View All]

doctorbombeigh

(233 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Jul-20-04 07:11 PM
Response to Reply #2

14. Actually, they DO have to recognize the marriage...

that's what has the fundies in such a state. Constitutionally, each of the several states is required by the Constitution to give "full faith and credit" to the laws of the other states. That means if you're legally married in MA, you're legally married in FL. Period.

In other cases related to the full faith and credit clause, the Supremes have always upheld it. In the current case, the reason why the right wingers are forcing the Amendment (other than as helpful political fodder for Rove), is because they know that as a constitutional matter, the Supremes will rule that full faith and credit is the law of this land and will be upheld. I doubt that even Scalia would be able to decide against it, though he'd sure try to find a way. Basically, absent a constitutional amendment prohibiting gay marriage in every state, the anti-marriage crowd is constitutionally Cheney'd on this and they sure know it.

Gay marriage will shortly become a legally recognized reality in the United States. Still, it's nice to see 'em twist in the wind for a while, before they are humiliatingly defeated.

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

-Lesbian Couple Sues to Have All States Recognize Massachusetts Marriage	soulsick in jp	Jul-20-04 06:10 PM	#0
- wonder if this will help fuel the fire against gay marriages.	28erl	Jul-20-04 06:21 PM	#1
- Just because one state recognizes it, doesn't mean the others have to	Massacure	Jul-20-04 06:26 PM	#2
- If a heterosexual couple gets married in any state	Lex	Jul-20-04 06:42 PM	#3
- Not true	dolstein	Jul-20-04 06:50 PM	#7
- And this suit will be decided on equal protection grounds too.	Lex	Jul-20-04 06:55 PM	#9
- Actually, they DO have to recognize the marriage...	doctorbombeigh	Jul-20-04 07:11 PM	#14
- Wrong	Amarant	Jul-20-04 07:18 PM	#15
- wouldn't it fall under laws of reciprocity?	Elginoid	Jul-21-04 01:42 AM	#73
- There are a lot of issues to be resolved...	orlandoFL	Jul-20-04 06:42 PM	#4
- As much as I agree, I wish they would have waited until Kerry was elected	SoCalDem	Jul-20-04 06:48 PM	#5
- Bingo.	UnityDem	Jul-21-04 04:46 AM	#80
- One states laws are not recognized in another state.	hightime	Jul-20-04 06:50 PM	#6
- But if the Supreme Court says it is a matter of Equal Protection	Lex	Jul-20-04 06:57 PM	#10
- This topic has outpaced my knowledge, I am currently reading on it.	hightime	Jul-20-04 07:01 PM	#11
- I suggest that one place look is to read	Lex	Jul-20-04 07:06 PM	#12
- Qualifying age to marry....	orlandoFL	Jul-20-04 07:18 PM	#16
- I suggest you read the constitution	Amarant	Jul-20-04 07:22 PM	#18
- Marriage is a decree or official act	Gothmog	Jul-20-04 07:40 PM	#23
- Exactly. The fundies know they are screwed on case law	Lex	Jul-20-04 08:00 PM	#29
- Good! Justice Delayed Is Justice Denied.	David Zephyr	Jul-20-04 06:53 PM	#8
- Full faith and Credit clause	Gothmog	Jul-20-04 07:11 PM	#13
- Really?	DoNotRefill	Jul-20-04 07:22 PM	#17
- No, different thing altogether. We are talking Equal Protection	Lex	Jul-20-04 07:35 PM	#20
- Sorry, but...	DoNotRefill	Jul-20-04 07:39 PM	#21
- "The right to marry cannot be infringed by the State"	Lex	Jul-20-04 07:47 PM	#26
- Is homosexuality a racial classification?	DoNotRefill	Jul-20-04 07:55 PM	#27
- Arggh. Surely you understand the broader implications	Lex	Jul-20-04 08:07 PM	#31
- "fundamental to our very existence and survival"	hightime	Jul-20-04 08:01 PM	#30
- I know lots of gay parents with kids.	Lex	Jul-20-04 08:10 PM	#32
- I think you got my take on the stated ruling backwards.	hightime	Jul-20-04 09:07 PM	#42
- Uhhh marriage is NOT	Amarant	Jul-20-04 09:21 PM	#46
- The stability that marriages affords a family with children	Lex	Jul-20-04 09:57 PM	#52
- Not to mention a divorce rate of 50%.	jdjkkse	Jul-20-04 10:06 PM	#54
- What is the homosexual "divorce" rate?? Or was that everyone?	hightime	Jul-21-04 01:21 AM	#72
- Good Parenting has to do with the "very existence and our survival"	Pachamama	Jul-21-04 04:18 AM	#79
- The general thinking is that the FMA will be struck down...	doctorbombeigh	Jul-20-04 07:24 PM	#19
- Yes indeed. The writing is on the wall. n/t	Lex	Jul-20-04 07:39 PM	#22
- FMA is being proposed as an amendment to the Constitution	Gothmog	Jul-20-04 07:47 PM	#25
- Not applicable	Gothmog	Jul-20-04 07:44 PM	#24
- actually...	DoNotRefill	Jul-20-04 07:59 PM	#28
- Who cares?	jdjkkse	Jul-20-04 08:47 PM	#34
- Interesting case- it would be nice if the pleadings were online	depakote_kid	Jul-20-04 08:27 PM	#33
- "principle of equality at the heart of the 14th amendment"	jdjkkse	Jul-20-04 08:57 PM	#38
- As I said, it's an interesting case	depakote_kid	Jul-20-04 09:11 PM	#45
- Queers are fighting to marry in America.	jdjkkse	Jul-20-04 09:42 PM	#48
- So your point is?	depakote_kid	Jul-20-04 09:59 PM	#53
- No, that the issue is here in the U.S.	jdjkkse	Jul-20-04 10:10 PM	#55
- Even in the US	depakote_kid	Jul-20-04 10:16 PM	#56
- Full faith and credit ain't	ljaycox	Jul-20-04 08:48 PM	#35
- Equal Protection will be what wins this case, not	Lex	Jul-20-04 08:56 PM	#37
- The flaw in your reasoning	depakote_kid	Jul-20-04 08:57 PM	#39
- Too right.	Lex	Jul-20-04 09:04 PM	#41
- I think this controversy is the greatest gift the fundies ever gave queers	jdjkkse	Jul-20-04 09:08 PM	#43
- History and case law says they will lose	Square_Peg	Jul-20-04 08:55 PM	#36
- Can you explain the legal reasoning behind	Lex	Jul-20-04 09:02 PM	#40
- If Square Peg doesn't, will you?	Nashvilliberal	Jul-20-04 09:11 PM	#44
- I'm so sick of this reich wing argument.	jdjkkse	Jul-20-04 09:35 PM	#47
- It's the Box Turtle argument	depakote_kid	Jul-20-04 09:44 PM	#49
- I actually love box turtles.	jdjkkse	Jul-20-04 09:52 PM	#51
- He picked box turtles cause he be a pre-vert	Hekate	Jul-21-04 06:25 AM	#82
- Supreme Court cases on the subject	Square_Peg	Jul-20-04 11:05 PM	#57
- Haha	Amarant	Jul-20-04 11:13 PM	#58
- Um I'm just quoting law	Square_Peg	Jul-20-04 11:16 PM	#59
- Ok I'll quote law too	Amarant	Jul-20-04 11:22 PM	#60
- The fundamental right to marry someone of the opposite sex	Square_Peg	Jul-20-04 11:26 PM	#61
- Hmmm	Amarant	Jul-20-04 11:33 PM	#63
- Old Supreme Court cases are not "inapplicable"	Square_Peg	Jul-20-04 11:46 PM	#67
- Uhh yes they are	Amarant	Jul-20-04 11:48 PM	#68
- It's beyond race. It's beyond gender. Is it beyond species?	DoNotRefill	Jul-21-04 02:38 AM	#75
- Pretty simple	Amarant	Jul-21-04 03:26 AM	#76
- 100% wrong....	DoNotRefill	Jul-21-04 11:54 AM	#84
- Wrong. It was NOT about the right to marry the opposite sex.	Lex	Jul-20-04 11:56 PM	#69
- If it's illegal	Bleachers7	Jul-21-04 12:29 AM	#71
- Bless their brave little hearts!	leesa	Jul-20-04 09:46 PM	#50
- The Supreme Court will strike it down!	Fone Book	Jul-20-04 11:33 PM	#62
- Oh really?	Amarant	Jul-20-04 11:34 PM	#64
- on what grounds will it be struck down?	Elginoid	Jul-21-04 01:45 AM	#74
- I also wish they would have waited until after November.	napi21	Jul-20-04 11:39 PM	#65
- Any individual	Amarant	Jul-20-04 11:45 PM	#66
- You know it's pretty pathetic	Amarant	Jul-20-04 11:57 PM	#70
- Yes	DaveSZ	Jul-21-04 03:36 AM	#77
- I don't understand	DaveSZ	Jul-21-04 03:50 AM	#78
- Finally someone who sees gay "marriage" the way I do	DaveSZ	Jul-21-04 05:55 AM	#81
- You took the words right out of my mouth	Hekate	Jul-21-04 06:48 AM	#83

Reply #14: Actually, they DO have to recognize the marriage... [View All]