Republicans approve bill to protect same-sex marriage . . . give finger to Constitution and federalism

And? Article IV, Section 1 does not, nor was it intended to, contradict anything I have stated.

I didn’t conflate age of consent with Lawrence. You did. For god-knows-what reason.

In this case…marriages happening in one state will be recognized in all other states.

1 Like

Here we go…

Good for the Republicans who voted for it.

:roll_eyes:

Your baseless opinion is noted.

Now, a word about our federal Constitution’s "Full Faith and Credit” clause.

Article IV was adopted to establish a universal rule by which one state may be required to verify and acknowledge the records of another state during a legal proceeding between contesting parties, such as in the collection of a debt. For example, a child support judgment handed down by a court in New York against a party who has moved to Florida to escape making payment may be presented to a court in Florida which is then to take judicial notice of the judgment. However, the laws of New York under which the judgment arose are not made applicable to residents living in Florida. Likewise, applying Article IV to say the driving laws of one state which may issue a permit under specified conditions cannot be enforced in another state under the full faith and credit provision. One state is not obligated to recognize the driving permit issued by another state. A Number of States do not accept every out of state learner’s permit. Last time I checked, one may not drive in New York State if they are under 16, even if they are licensed in another state!

And so, if two people of the same sex are married in a State where same sex marriage is constitutional and they move to Florida, Article IV is not intended, nor does it, require the State of Florida to recognize the couple as being a married couple under its laws.

Hopefully that clears up any misconceptions you may have had regarding Article IV and its legislative intent regarding "Full Faith and Credit”.

JWK

OK we are talking about marriage.

When someone is married in one state, Article 4 says that all other states must recognize that. Yes?

See my above post.

I did. Marriage is marriage. There are no exceptions.

If two people of the same sex are married in a State where same sex marriage is constitutional and they move to Florida, Article IV is not intended, nor does it, require the State of Florida to recognize the couple as being a married couple under its laws.

I’ll correct it for you…

If two people are married in any State, and they move to Florida, Article IV requires the State of Florida to recognize the couple as being a married couple under its laws.

You said it was going to be decreased. You brought up age of consent. That’s where it’s going.

You conflated them as one being the start and the other is what we will see next.

Age of consent laws since Lawrence have raised age of consent…. Your slippery slope fear mongering about the gheys is just that.

Thank you for your baseless opinion

Article IV, Section 1, does not, nor was it intended to require one state to practice and enforce another state’s licensing laws, and that includes the requirements to be met for a state issued marriage license.

Yes. Full faith and credit.

Now, our friend if going to try to wall-text and stupid meme us into submission, but he is wrong.

2 Likes

people cant love each other without marriage?

Yes people can love each other without marriage.

oh good then people against gay “marriage” aren’t against love

…people against gay “marriage” are against certain types of love

Regarding the constitutional meaning of the full faith and credit clause see The Federalist Papers, No. 42:

"The power of prescribing by general laws the manner in which the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of each State shall be proved, and the effect they shall have in other States, is an evident and valuable improvement on the clause relating to this subject in the Articles of Confederation. The meaning of the latter is extremely indeterminate, and can be of little importance under any interpretation which it will bear. The power here established may be rendered a very convenient instrument of justice, and be particularly beneficial on the borders of contiguous States where the effects liable to justice may be suddenly and secretly translated in any stage of the process within a foreign jurisdiction."

no they’re just against the “marriage” part

they dont otherwise give a damn about who loves who

1 Like