The article says that "The amendment states that marriage "shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman," adding that no state would be required to give legal recognition to same-sex marriages sanctioned by any other state. "
So my question is, does that statement mean, if a State wishes to recognize a union, it can? Even if other states choose to ignore it, does this ammendment infer that a state can recognize a union if it chooses to do so?
Or does it mean that a state cannot legally issue licenses to marry, and that no state would legally have to recognize any same gender unions which have already taken place?
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:50 pm Posts: 3955 Location: Leaving Here
Well, I see that the Supreme Court refused Mass. a case. I don't know if California has been similarly refused by the Supreme Court, yet. I also see the comment 'The main point of the full faith and credit clause is not that "laws" can cross state lines, but that judicial determinations are binding on the courts of other jurisdictions,..." and I understand that one. I'm also aware that, inspite of the law, members of the Mormon church are still engaging in polygamists practises (there are still plenty of households with one man and multiple wives). I had discussions about it on a different message board. I also see where punkdavid wrote:
"Public Acts - If the legislature of the State of Massachusetts were to pass a law that permitted same sex marriage, another State would have to give full faith and credit to that law. That does not mean that Ohio would have to also authorize gay marriages, but it would mean that their courts would have to treat a Massachusetts same sex married couple equally under Ohio law as it would treat any other married couple."
So is the Senate just simply covering the Legislative Butt of all states as far as not recognizing marriages, or are they also preventing them from recognizing them within their own bounderies with the "between a man and a woman" verbage?
So is the Senate just simply covering the Legislative Butt of all states as far as not recognizing marriages, or are they also preventing them from recognizing them within their own bounderies with the "between a man and a woman" verbage?
c-
It's federal limiting state government's powers. A state's constitution cannot neglect federal law.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 1:14 am Posts: 37778 Location: OmaGOD!!! Gender: Male
CommonWord wrote:
cltaylor12 wrote:
So is the Senate just simply covering the Legislative Butt of all states as far as not recognizing marriages, or are they also preventing them from recognizing them within their own bounderies with the "between a man and a woman" verbage?
c-
It's federal limiting state government's powers. A state's constitution cannot neglect federal law.
And a federal law cannot ignore the federal constitution. I think that the Congress has overstepped their bounds with the DOMA, and a few federal courts have agreed so far. We'll see how this all plays out. This will be the big story in the Supreme Court in the next few years.
--PunkDavid
_________________ Unfortunately, at the Dawning of the Age of Aquarius, the Flower Children jerked off and went back to sleep.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 4:01 am Posts: 19477 Location: Brooklyn NY
I thought a "ban" on gay marriage would never pass.
_________________
LittleWing sometime in July 2007 wrote:
Unfortunately, it's so elementary, and the big time investors behind the drive in the stock market aren't so stupid. This isn't the false economy of 2000.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
