Question for AR Husker Fan

[sarge87]

With same sex marriage being legal in California, residents of other states will be flocking in to have civil ceremonies performed, because there aren't non-resident restrictions as in other states. I believe it is another example of activist courts legislating from the bench, because the voters of California have weighed in twice on this issue, and it was defeated both times. Whether or not we agree, I think, is a matter of semantics anyways, but that is not the question here. As far as I'm concerned, the government should be out of the marriage business altogether. Since lawyers have made divorce a cottage industry, and the Trial Lawyers Association happens to be one of the largest donors to politics, so there is little chance of that happening, since most legislators are lawyers by trade. Not a knock, just a fact. No laws against lobbying, at least not yet.

Having stated this, many of these couples are going to go back to their home states to sue for their marriages to be recognized by said states under Article IV Sec I of the U.S. Constitution (Full Faith and Credit clause). States such as New York and Massachusetts have stated that they would recognize said marriages without legislation in place granting them rights guaranteed to heterosexual couples (more legislating by fiat).

The question here is if by some chance these marriages, which are not mentioned in the Constitution are upheld in the courts under Article IV Sec I, then are other local and state laws restricting rights granted by The Constitution in jeopardy of being overturned such as citywide gun bans? Could there be arguments for recognizing conceal-carry from one state to another? Just wanted a lawyer's perspective on this.

 

[AR Husker Fan]

The question here is if by some chance these marriages, which are not mentioned in the Constitution are upheld in the courts under Article IV Sec I, then are other local and state laws restricting rights granted by The Constitution in jeopardy of being overturned such as citywide gun bans? Could there be arguments for recognizing conceal-carry from one state to another? Just wanted a lawyer's perspective on this.

Depends on whether the other states have any laws setting for a public policy against same-sex marriages. If they do, they generally are not required to give full faith and credit to a state that permits same-sex marriages. This is the "public policy" exception to the full faith and credit clause in the constitution. The question, however, is not entirely settled, but I would expect that the above will be the case.

For such things as conceal-carry statutes, the answer is, "No". The full faith and credit clause has long been held to give less standing to state stautes as opposed to court judgments. The latter are entitled to full faith and credit (with a very few exceptions), while the former has only spotty support.

By the way...

With same sex marriage being legal in California, residents of other states will be flocking in to have civil ceremonies performed, because there aren't non-resident restrictions as in other states. I believe it is another example of activist courts legislating from the bench, because the voters of California have weighed in twice on this issue, and it was defeated both times.

Actually, it isn't an "activist court" action. The court must rule on the meaning and applicability of laws. In this specific example, the court held that the California constitution forbid the state from prohibiting same-sex marriages. The solution to that is not to pass a law - which is subserviant to the constitution - but to ratify an amendment to the state constitution.

As far as I'm concerned, the government should be out of the marriage business altogether.

Marriage is a contract. It confers rights. As such, and like all contracts, it is governed by the laws and constitution. The only alternative is to completely abolish marriage or to govern it under the church. Otherwise, issues of care of a child - the obligation to support, for one example, custody for another - could not be determined or enforced.

Since lawyers have made divorce a cottage industry, and the Trial Lawyers Association happens to be one of the largest donors to politics, so there is little chance of that happening, since most legislators are lawyers by trade. Not a knock, just a fact. No laws against lobbying, at least not yet.

Actually, if you look at the professions of legislators today verses, say, 20 years ago, you'll find that the trend has been for fewer and fewer lawyers to run for the legislator. Mosts states, in fact, have far less than 50% of their legislators that are lawyers.

 

[rawhide]

Makes me want to go out and break a very minor law just soes ya can be my mouthpiece(speaking in a redneck voce sotto)

j/k really REALLY

 

[sarge87]

The question here is if by some chance these marriages, which are not mentioned in the Constitution are upheld in the courts under Article IV Sec I, then are other local and state laws restricting rights granted by The Constitution in jeopardy of being overturned such as citywide gun bans? Could there be arguments for recognizing conceal-carry from one state to another? Just wanted a lawyer's perspective on this.

Depends on whether the other states have any laws setting for a public policy against same-sex marriages. If they do, they generally are not required to give full faith and credit to a state that permits same-sex marriages. This is the "public policy" exception to the full faith and credit clause in the constitution. The question, however, is not entirely settled, but I would expect that the above will be the case.

For such things as conceal-carry statutes, the answer is, "No". The full faith and credit clause has long been held to give less standing to state stautes as opposed to court judgments. The latter are entitled to full faith and credit (with a very few exceptions), while the former has only spotty support.

By the way...

With same sex marriage being legal in California, residents of other states will be flocking in to have civil ceremonies performed, because there aren't non-resident restrictions as in other states. I believe it is another example of activist courts legislating from the bench, because the voters of California have weighed in twice on this issue, and it was defeated both times.

Actually, it isn't an "activist court" action. The court must rule on the meaning and applicability of laws. In this specific example, the court held that the California constitution forbid the state from prohibiting same-sex marriages. The solution to that is not to pass a law - which is subserviant to the constitution - but to ratify an amendment to the state constitution.

As far as I'm concerned, the government should be out of the marriage business altogether.

Marriage is a contract. It confers rights. As such, and like all contracts, it is governed by the laws and constitution. The only alternative is to completely abolish marriage or to govern it under the church. Otherwise, issues of care of a child - the obligation to support, for one example, custody for another - could not be determined or enforced.

Since lawyers have made divorce a cottage industry, and the Trial Lawyers Association happens to be one of the largest donors to politics, so there is little chance of that happening, since most legislators are lawyers by trade. Not a knock, just a fact. No laws against lobbying, at least not yet.

Actually, if you look at the professions of legislators today verses, say, 20 years ago, you'll find that the trend has been for fewer and fewer lawyers to run for the legislator. Mosts states, in fact, have far less than 50% of their legislators that are lawyers.

I came to the same conclusion on the gun issue. I needed a second opinion on this because a friend of mine was trying to make that argument for that fact.

The same-sex marriage issue in California will probably go to a Constitutional referendum. The Dems probably would have preferred that this issue not come out for this election cycle, because it will charge up a Republican base to get out the vote, because they will feel it's another attack on tradition. Like I've always said what people do in their own bedroom is their business, as long as I don't have to pay for it. It will be interesting to see though how a divorce case will be handled as far as alimony is concerned. They may decide this is not a good idea, especially if they have considerable assets up for grabs.

I should have clarified that I meant the Congress on the percentage of lawyers, at least when I was a staffer up there. Most state reps. especially from smaller states like Nebraska by and large are not lawyers, so I agree with you there.

 

[AR Husker Fan]

I tend to follow the Sam Kinnison (sic) theory on same sex marriage - "Hell, let 'em get married and be as miserable as the rest of us."

 

[HUSKER 37]

I'd almost PAY to watch "Divorce Court" now.

 

[sarge87]

I tend to follow the Sam Kinnison (sic) theory on same sex marriage - "Hell, let 'em get married and be as miserable as the rest of us."

:laughpound :laughpound :laughpound

 

[huskernumerouno]

I'd almost PAY to watch "Divorce Court" now.

I can see it now, two flamers with their lispy weak voice whining about fluffy the cat is mine but you can have the gerbil/hamster.

 

[husker rob]

The question here is if by some chance these marriages, which are not mentioned in the Constitution are upheld in the courts under Article IV Sec I, then are other local and state laws restricting rights granted by The Constitution in jeopardy of being overturned such as citywide gun bans? Could there be arguments for recognizing conceal-carry from one state to another? Just wanted a lawyer's perspective on this.

Depends on whether the other states have any laws setting for a public policy against same-sex marriages. If they do, they generally are not required to give full faith and credit to a state that permits same-sex marriages. This is the "public policy" exception to the full faith and credit clause in the constitution. The question, however, is not entirely settled, but I would expect that the above will be the case.

For such things as conceal-carry statutes, the answer is, "No". The full faith and credit clause has long been held to give less standing to state stautes as opposed to court judgments. The latter are entitled to full faith and credit (with a very few exceptions), while the former has only spotty support.

By the way...

With same sex marriage being legal in California, residents of other states will be flocking in to have civil ceremonies performed, because there aren't non-resident restrictions as in other states. I believe it is another example of activist courts legislating from the bench, because the voters of California have weighed in twice on this issue, and it was defeated both times.

Actually, it isn't an "activist court" action. The court must rule on the meaning and applicability of laws. In this specific example, the court held that the California constitution forbid the state from prohibiting same-sex marriages. The solution to that is not to pass a law - which is subserviant to the constitution - but to ratify an amendment to the state constitution.

As far as I'm concerned, the government should be out of the marriage business altogether.

Marriage is a contract. It confers rights. As such, and like all contracts, it is governed by the laws and constitution. The only alternative is to completely abolish marriage or to govern it under the church. Otherwise, issues of care of a child - the obligation to support, for one example, custody for another - could not be determined or enforced.

Since lawyers have made divorce a cottage industry, and the Trial Lawyers Association happens to be one of the largest donors to politics, so there is little chance of that happening, since most legislators are lawyers by trade. Not a knock, just a fact. No laws against lobbying, at least not yet.

Actually, if you look at the professions of legislators today verses, say, 20 years ago, you'll find that the trend has been for fewer and fewer lawyers to run for the legislator. Mosts states, in fact, have far less than 50% of their legislators that are lawyers.

ummm.......enguish pweeze, not weegeleeze

 

[huskernumerouno]

The question here is if by some chance these marriages, which are not mentioned in the Constitution are upheld in the courts under Article IV Sec I, then are other local and state laws restricting rights granted by The Constitution in jeopardy of being overturned such as citywide gun bans? Could there be arguments for recognizing conceal-carry from one state to another? Just wanted a lawyer's perspective on this.

Depends on whether the other states have any laws setting for a public policy against same-sex marriages. If they do, they generally are not required to give full faith and credit to a state that permits same-sex marriages. This is the "public policy" exception to the full faith and credit clause in the constitution. The question, however, is not entirely settled, but I would expect that the above will be the case.

For such things as conceal-carry statutes, the answer is, "No". The full faith and credit clause has long been held to give less standing to state stautes as opposed to court judgments. The latter are entitled to full faith and credit (with a very few exceptions), while the former has only spotty support.

By the way...

With same sex marriage being legal in California, residents of other states will be flocking in to have civil ceremonies performed, because there aren't non-resident restrictions as in other states. I believe it is another example of activist courts legislating from the bench, because the voters of California have weighed in twice on this issue, and it was defeated both times.

Actually, it isn't an "activist court" action. The court must rule on the meaning and applicability of laws. In this specific example, the court held that the California constitution forbid the state from prohibiting same-sex marriages. The solution to that is not to pass a law - which is subserviant to the constitution - but to ratify an amendment to the state constitution.

As far as I'm concerned, the government should be out of the marriage business altogether.

Marriage is a contract. It confers rights. As such, and like all contracts, it is governed by the laws and constitution. The only alternative is to completely abolish marriage or to govern it under the church. Otherwise, issues of care of a child - the obligation to support, for one example, custody for another - could not be determined or enforced.

Since lawyers have made divorce a cottage industry, and the Trial Lawyers Association happens to be one of the largest donors to politics, so there is little chance of that happening, since most legislators are lawyers by trade. Not a knock, just a fact. No laws against lobbying, at least not yet.

Actually, if you look at the professions of legislators today verses, say, 20 years ago, you'll find that the trend has been for fewer and fewer lawyers to run for the legislator. Mosts states, in fact, have far less than 50% of their legislators that are lawyers.

ummm.......enguish pweeze, not weegeleeze

LOL