Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei
I think at the current time Defense of Marriage Act makes Full Faith and Credit moot.
|
Draw your own conclusions about why the DOMA was created and floated into public discourse, but the legal reality is the Full Faith and Credit Clause does not apply to marriages.
I already posted this:
Quote:
The lawsuit bases some of its arguments on the full faith and credit clause of the U.S. Constitution, which dates to the days when a young nation was reconciling the laws of the colonies. The clause says states should honor the public acts of other states.
Because Massachusetts legally sanctions same-sex marriages, "all the other states should be constitutionally required to uphold the validity of the marriage," the lawsuit states.
It's not that simple, legal experts say.
Historically, the full faith and credit clause has applied to judicial decisions, not legislation, said Koppelman, the Northwestern law professor. A Florida resident, say, loses a lawsuit and has to pay $1-million. Even if that person flees Florida, the full faith and credit clause makes that $1-million judgment enforceable anywhere in the country.
The federal courts have also made it clear that states do not have to acquiesce to everything another state might do. States can follow their own laws when it comes to public policy.
States do generally honor the marriage laws of other states. Florida, for instance, sets a minimum marriage age of 16, and then only with a parent's consent. But a 14-year-old Florida boy could travel to Massachusetts, which allows 14-year-olds to marry, and get hitched. Florida would likely recognize that marriage.
But think of that as a courtesy, legal experts say, not something the U.S. Constitution compels the states to do.
"A state need not recognize a marriage that violates its own public policy," said Cass Sunstein, a law and political science professor at the University of Chicago. "There has long been a public policy exception to the full faith and credit clause."
|
EDIT:
BTW, when a legal expert uses the word "historically" he or she is referring to the concept of jurisprudence. It's not historical in the common sense that yesterday it has been thought of like this, but maybe today it will be thought of differently. Historical precedence directs the court in how to forumulate its current rulings.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by AVoiceOfReason
I applaud the governor for standing up for what the people of the state said they wanted. It'll be interesting to see how this is reported--will it be the governor overriding the legislature or will it be the governor being on the side of the voters?
|
It appears it's a case of our governor riding the fence (a bizarre stance, in my opinion, given the Republican stance on "judicial activism"):
Quote:
Margita Thompson, a spokeswoman for Schwarzenegger, said the governor believes "the issue should be decided by the ballot box or the courts," and would not comment on whether he would sign or veto the bill if it passes.
Thompson made a point of saying that the issue "has been decided by the people." But she added that the governor "will uphold whatever the court decides."
|
--http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/01/AR2005090102086_2.html