Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

What happens if you are legally married in one state, but then move

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
npk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-03-09 05:00 PM
Original message
What happens if you are legally married in one state, but then move
Edited on Wed Jun-03-09 05:13 PM by npk
Forgive me if this has already been asked and answered. Say you live in New Hampshire, a state that has just approved legislation to allow gay couples to marry, and you get married in that state. Then say a year goes by and you move to California, or even Ohio. My question is would that couples marriage license be legal in that sate. If not how can one state disregard another states certification. Isn't there a law that requires neighboring states to recognize other states laws pertaining to people who move from one state to another. I know that New Hampshire and California are not neighboring states, but wouldn't any state also apply in this case Am I wrong or what?

on edit: I removed Iowa and replaced it with any state. I screwed up, sorry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
DURHAM D Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-03-09 05:05 PM
Response to Original message
1. I assume this is a joke.
Its the "geography" that gave you away.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
npk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-03-09 05:09 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. "the geography that gave me away"
That gave me away as what. What has the geography given me away as. Please explain how your vast intellect of reading between the lines has given you this understanding.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluzmann57 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-03-09 05:08 PM
Response to Original message
2. Um, Iowa is 2000 miles away from California
So I wouldn't exactly call them "neighboring" states.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
npk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-03-09 05:12 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. Iowa was a bad example
Edited on Wed Jun-03-09 05:15 PM by npk
I did say somewhat but I should have just left that out. Any state was what I should have said.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ayeshahaqqiqa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-03-09 05:10 PM
Response to Original message
4. I believe marriage licenses for heterosexuals are recognized
by all states, but not those of same-sex couples. Perhaps, when enough states legalized homosexual marriage, a case will come before the SCOTUS, citing equal protection or something similar. But for that to happen, the state where the couple moved to would have to do something denying the couple rights that heterosexual couples have--and I'm not sure what these would be. Also I'm not sure what the outcome of the case before the Supremes would be.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tesha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-03-09 05:15 PM
Response to Reply #4
8. In most states, all that has to happen is for a married gay couple to file their state income taxes.
"Married filing jointly"? That'll trigger legal action.

Tesha

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ayeshahaqqiqa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-03-09 05:23 PM
Response to Reply #8
13. good one
I bet if this happens, there will be a suit that goes all the way to the SCOTUS.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoCalDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-03-09 05:35 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. the tax form does not have a male-female check-box
and since computers do most of the work, it would probably go through, unnoticed
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tesha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-03-09 05:12 PM
Response to Original message
6. The answer is "Nobody knows".
The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) attempts to make gay marriages
"non-transportable", but it's likely unconstitutional in the light of the
"full faith and credit" language of the U.S. Constitution.

But nobody really knows until it's litigated all the way to the U.S.
Supreme Court or the Feds recognize gay marriage nationwide.

Tesha

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
backscatter712 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-03-09 05:13 PM
Response to Original message
7. That's when Defense of Marriage Act kicks in.
That's a piece of shit of an unconstitutional "law" that allows states to disallow same-sex marriages from other states.

It's obvious to anyone with a brain, and who hasn't drank right wing Kool-Aid, that DOMA violates the equal-protection clause of the 14th Amendment, and violates the full-faith-and-credit clause in the Constitution.

Unfortunately, we have to wait until Scalia eats too many cheeseburgers and keels over before we can sue on those grounds and have a half-way decent chance of winning instead of getting a Plessy v. Ferguson decision.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-03-09 05:15 PM
Response to Original message
9. The same sex marriages are only recognized in the states that recognize them. Yet another way
gay marriage is sadly still second class. If you are in a straight marriage in ANY state, and move to another state, your marriage is automatically recognized in that state. And is recognized by the Federal Gov't (for social security, taxes, etc.).

Not so with gay marriage.

Which is precisely why the US Supreme Court will have to address this matter eventually.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alphafemale Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-03-09 05:16 PM
Response to Original message
10. Yep. There's a clause in the Constitution about this
It's the same thing that was the deciding factor in Loving vs the state of Virginia overturning anti-miscegenation laws. The clause has to do with the fact that a contract in one state MUST be recognized by all other states.

I don't have the exact clause number right now but it is there.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Xithras Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-03-09 05:18 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. Article Four
States are required to give "full faith and credit" to court orders and public acts that are issued in other states. A marriage is considered a "public act".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
npk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-03-09 05:19 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. That's what I was thinking of
I couldn't remember the exact wording.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
votingupstart Donating Member (535 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-03-09 05:29 PM
Response to Reply #10
14. i will be interested to see how this plays out in court
i can already see a SCOTUS ruling that will basically end this debate and allow gay marriage through out the US... or maybee i have had to much caffeenneeeeee
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alphafemale Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-03-09 05:43 PM
Response to Reply #14
16. I really don't see how SCOTUS could rule any other way.
Not without a "Defense of Marriage Act" or Constitutional Amendment. And neither one of those are happening.

It is just going to take a couple with unimaginable inner strength to bring the case to court. Because they are going to be absolutely crucified by the right-wing media.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hepburn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-03-09 05:46 PM
Response to Original message
17. DOMA governs viz a gay marriage.
According to DOMA, your marriage is NOT valid in any state which does not provide for or allow gay marriage.

BTW: Fuck DOMA. IMO, it is unConst because of the full faith and credit clause of the U.S. Const.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grantcart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-03-09 05:46 PM
Response to Original message
18. what happens -- mamoth litigation


That is why with only a few states the others will have to follow.


It is 14th Ammendment nightmare.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Sep 22nd 2014, 12:02 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

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.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

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

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC