Quote:
|
Originally Posted by smooth
If you don't know how it applies to marriage, how can you use it to rebut my statement that there is no law forcing states to recognize each others' marriage proceedures?
|
That isn't what you said. What you said was:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by smooth
The fact of the matter is that there are no laws mandating that states honor each other's marriage licenses (or driver's licenses, for that matter). They have historically chosen to do so on their own accord.
|
Also, you state:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by smooth
The simple response is that Article 4, section 1 does not apply to marriages. Please re-read your quoted portion very carefully. Marriages are not judicial proceedings.
|
The full faith and credit clause is not limited to judicial proceedings. It specifically also includes public acts and records. This is why your driver's license is recognized by states you don't reside in. If you have a valid Montana driver's license, and you do not have a Missouri driver's license, Missouri can not convict you for driving without a license unless they can prove you actually reside in Missouri.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by smooth
There is no law the requires states to recognize the marriages of other states. You can keep thinking so if you want, but you're arguing against legal experts and a loooooong history of jurisprudence stating otherwise. Did you skip over my legal brief? Did you not read the article I posted about a specific federal test case on this very issue?
|
No, I'm not. I'm saying congress could enact a law under the full faith and credit clause that REQUIRES states to recognize same sex marriages recorded in other states. The defense of marriage act does exactly the opposite. The fact is that the defense of marriage act gets its power to support states in not recognizing gay marriages of other states from the full faith and credit clause.
I did not read your brief, but I did read the test case, which is somewhat more on point. The suit filed was a challenge to the defense of marriage act, a similar florida law, and a claim that the plaintiffs were subject to a civil rights violation under the equal protection clause. The court found that under DOMA:
Quote:
|
Congress’ actions are an appropriate exercise of its power to regulate conflicts between the laws of two different States...
|
The Supreme court has also weighed in on the issue of full faith and credit:
Quote:
|
...the Full Faith and Credit Clause does not require a State to apply another State’s law in violation of its own legitimate public policy.
|
In other words, Florida doesn't have to respect gay marriages recorded in Massachusetts because they violate Florida's legitmate public policy. This part of what prevents Massachusetts from legislating for Florida, and vice versa.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by smooth
I find these kinds of discussions very frustrating. I go through the trouble of digging around to find my professional writings and the opinions of other, known experts, and people want to refute my professional opinion without doing their own research or mishandling the evidence they happen to come across.
|
By your own admission, your are not an expert in constitutional law, nor are you a lawyer. Your opinion on this matter is no better than anyone else's. Of course, if the someone else IS an expert in such matters, their opinion would certainly have more credibility than yours.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by smooth
On what basis do you think Congress could pass such a law mandating the states to recognize each other's marriages? Any such legislation wouldn't pass Constitutional scrutiny.
|
On what basis do you think they couldn't? Under full faith and credit, the congress COULD pass such a law. In fact, they more or less passed it's inverse in DOMA, which the court found appropriate under the full faith and credit clause.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by smooth
I've got a well-written, lay-oriented book sitting on my shelf called, Law 101: Everything you need to know about the American legal system by Jay Feinman. It's just a bit over 300 pages and you could read it at B&N or Borders over some coffee. You could actually refer to any good constitutional law book to better understand the issues surrounding federalism and state sovereignty, but this one is written in an easily consumable format.
|
Professor Feinman is a brilliant man, but his focus is more on economics. In these matters, I find more guidance from Thomas, Bader-Ginsburg, Amar, or the like.