Quote:
|
Originally Posted by SirLance
That isn't what you said. What you said was:
Also, you state:
|
What difference do you see between the two quotes of mine you provided?
Quote:
|
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.
|
Your analysis is flawed. If the full faith and credit clause applied to driver's licenses, then it wouldn't matter where you resided--your driver's license would be valid regardless of which state you resided in as long as it was valid in the issuing state. In regard to the constitutional provision you are citing and marriage/driver's licenses, states are not required to recognize their validity, they merely choose to do so. But the driving issue is an aside that I didn't bring up. The analogy is flawed from the premise since one does not have a fundamental right to drive in any state.
Quote:
|
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.
|
Actually, you stated that the law already existed. Having been shown that it does not, you now shift your argument to claim that one could be passed. The full faith and credit clause, to the extent that it has been argued to apply to marriages by plaintiffs, has been used to attack the DOMA. Since your initial argument was that the clause requires states to honor marriages from other states, you are contradicting yourself when you now claim the DOMA, which gives states the power to
not honor other states' marriage proceedures, derives its power from that same clause.
Quote:
|
I did not read your brief, but I did read the test case, which is somewhat more on point.
|
How do you know which is "more on point" if you haven't read my brief?
Quote:
The Supreme court has also weighed in on the issue of full faith and credit:
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.
|
Oddly enough, this is what I've been saying all along. The full faith and credit clause does not mandate that states honor each other's marriages. Are you agreeing or disagreeing; it's difficult to discern because you say I'm wrong and then repeat my position as if it's yours.
Quote:
|
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.
|
Where is this admission that I am not an expert on constitutional law? Actually, I laid out my credentials and produced my professional writing on the issue (which you stated you didn't read). Perhaps you are hinging your statement on the fact that I am ABD, but I produced statements from two known experts that agree with my assessment. You have produced none that dispute my stance and support your position.
Quote:
|
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.
|
This is going to degenerate very rapidly if your rebuttals are going to be a "yes they can" variety. You offer no evidence for your position. The best you come up with is the contradictory statement that since they passed it's inverse, they could force states to honor marriages. Congress not have the authority to regulate such affairs and they can not force a state to violate its own constitution. Given that many states have already passed constitutional amendments defining marriage, your opinion and knowledge on this point is very much questionable. Congress could hinge government funding on whether states honor out of state marriages, which is what they've done with other laws they've wanted states to implement, but they have no authority to force them to do so.
Quote:
|
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.
|
hmm.