Full Faith and Credit and Public Policy

[jillian]

I don't believe that's correct either.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Jillian this very argument is why I have been on about the danger to our Constitution and Government. That some think it is ok for one State to refuse to recognize the legal papers of marriage from another State is DANGEROUS. That our Congress won't address the issue is more so. The only thing Congress has done is muddy the water by trying to pass a blanket exception for States to do what Steer claims they already can do.

 

[Steerpike]

Jillian this very argument is why I have been on about the danger to our Constitution and Government. That some think it is ok for one State to refuse to recognize the legal papers of marriage from another State is DANGEROUS. That our Congress won't address the issue is more so. The only thing Congress has done is muddy the water by trying to pass a blanket exception for States to do what Steer claims they already can do.

Who said it was OK. I said it is the current state of the law, and neither you, nor Ravir, nor Jillian have shown anything to the contrary (likely because you cannot).

 

[jillian]

Who said it was OK. I said it is the current state of the law, and neither you, nor Ravir, nor Jillian have shown anything to the contrary (likely because you cannot).

It isn't the state of the law. You were already told that and were asked for proof that it is... which you've yet to provide.

We'll wait.

 

[Steerpike]

I already cited case law, which you ignored.

 

[jillian]

"Twenty-five states prohibit marriages between first cousins. Six states allow first cousin marriage under certain circumstances, and North Carolina allows first cousin marriage but prohibits double-cousin marriage. States generally recognize marriages of first cousins married in a state where such marriages are legal." (quoted from the National Conference of State Legislature's web site).

It says GENERALLY meaning not always, and I'm sorry i admit i remembered incorrectly about the immediate family thing. however some states require u not be capable of reproduction to be able to marry your first cousin is what i was thinking of.

Tauri Aphelion

I have in front of me a synopsis of the laws relating to marriage and consent. I see nothing indicating that any State has so draconian a provision that if certain people marry, they must be incapable of reproduction. Nor do I believe such a provision would withstand constitutional scrutiny.

but feel free to provide sources for your assertion.

 

[Steerpike]

I also provided a quote from a lawyer and senior editor at Slate on the opinion, which you ignored Jillian.

And here is an opinion from the Attorney General of Michigan on the matter (he cites some of the same cases I did), which I expect you'll also ignore:

Second, the Full Faith and Credit Clause is not inflexible. An exception exists for those instances, such as same-sex marriage, where one state's law would contradict the public policy of another state. The United States Supreme Court has examined the Full Faith and Credit Clause on numerous occasions. In a case involving a state court's order of a money judgment, Baker v General Motors Corp, 522 US 222; 118 S Ct 657; 139 L Ed 2d 580 (1998), the Supreme Court reviewed prior decisions and noted a distinction between court judgments and a state's laws for purposes of applying the Full Faith and Credit Clause:

Our precedent differentiates the credit owed to laws (legislative measures and common law) and to judgments. . . . The Full Faith and Credit Clause does not compel "a state to substitute the statutes of other states for its own statutes dealing with a subject matter concerning which it is competent to legislate." Pacific Employers Ins Co v Industrial Accident Comm’n, 306 US 493, 501, 83 L Ed 940, 59 S Ct 629 (1939); see Phillips Petroleum Co v Shutts, 472 US 797, 818-819, 86 L Ed 2d 628, 105 S Ct 2965 (1985). Regarding judgments, however, the full faith and credit obligation is exacting. [522 US at 232-233.]

While Massachusetts now allows marriage contracts between its citizens of the same sex as a result of a state court order, the court's decision is an interpretation of Massachusetts law and not a judgment that must be given full faith and credit in other states. The United States Supreme Court offered an even clearer statement regarding the proper application of US Const, art IV, § 1, in Nevada v Hall, 440 US 410, 422; 99 S Ct 1182; 59 L Ed 2d 416 (1979), quoting Pacific Employers Ins Co v Industrial Accident Comm’n, 306 US at 502-503:

"It has often been recognized by this Court that there are some limitations upon the extent to which a state may be required by the full faith and credit clause to enforce even the judgment of another state in contravention of its own statutes or policy. . . . And in the case of statutes, the extrastate effect of which Congress has not prescribed, as it may under the constitutional provision, we think the conclusion is unavoidable that the full faith and credit clause does not require one state to substitute for its own statute, applicable to persons and events within it, the conflicting statute of another state, even though that statute is of controlling force in the courts of the state of its enactment with respect to the same persons and events."

According to the Court in Nevada v Hall, the Full Faith and Credit Clause "'does not here enable one state to legislate for the other or to project its laws across state lines so as to preclude the other from prescribing for itself the legal consequences of acts within it.'" 440 US at 423-424, quoting Pacific Employers Ins Co, 306 US at 504-505.

Michigan case law also recognizes the public policy exception to the Full Faith and Credit Clause. The Michigan Supreme Court in In re Miller's Estate, 239 Mich 455, 457; 214 NW 428 (1927), held that, were the Michigan Legislature to declare a type of out-of-state marriage to be invalid as a matter of public policy, it would be invalid in Michigan, even if valid in the state where contracted. The Legislature's declaration in MCL 551.1 that "[a] marriage contracted between individuals of the same sex is invalid in this state" falls squarely within this public policy exception.

 

[tauriaphelion]

It is on the same site i pulled that quote from. It's not that they require sterilization its that they let cousins over the age of 65 who are no longer capable of reproduction marry.

First cousin marriage is allowed in these states under the following circumstances:

Arizona- if both are 65 or older, or one is unable to reproduce.

Illinois- if both are 50 or older, or one is unable to reproduce.

Indiana- if both are at least 65.

Maine- if couple obtains a physician's certificate of genetic counseling.

Utah- if both are 65 or older, or if both are 55 or older and one is unable to reproduce.

Wisconsin- if the woman is 55 or older, or one is unable to reproduce.

(yet again cited from the national conference of state legislatures site)

Tauri Aphelion

 

[Steerpike]

Well Jillian?

You have Supreme Court decisions cited by me.

You have an excerpt from an article by a lawyer and senior editor at Slate (who, incidentally, supports gay marriage)

You have an opinion by a State Attorney General, cited by me.

We haven't even gotten into DOMA in this discussion.

Where's your evidence?

 

[Steerpike]

Hmmm...looks like Jillian left the board...

*crickets*

Am I detecting a pattern? When she gets back there will be enough new messages in this thread that she can pretend she hasn't seen mine (like with the previous ones that she has studiously ignored).

Heh,

 

[Ravi]

Perhaps she actually does other things with herself than post on message boards?

What you have posted are opinions that interpret the Faith and Full Credit laws...there has been, as far as I can see, no ruling on the application of them toward gay marriage. Basically, you have wishful thinking.

 

[Steerpike]

That's a misunderstanding of how the law works, Ravir.

And there's no "wishful thinking" about it, since I support gay marriage.

And we haven't even mentioned DOMA yet, which specifically states that the various states don't have to recognize it. If you look at the Full Faith and Credit clause in the Constitution you'll see that Congress is granted a degree of control over how it plays out.

 

[Ravi]

Tauri, how does the state determine if these people are cousins or not? DNA testing? I seriously doubt it. These laws are probably hardly ever enforced.

You need to show an instance of another state refusing to recognize the marriage of cousins.

 

[Gunny]

Good plan, lets just have every State ignore the legal papers and authority of every other State, wanna move, gotta get remarried and do all your legal documents in the other State, petition for a new Birth Certificate and all that other fun stuff. Can't buy insurance in one State and expect it to be paid in another so we can break up all the large Insurance Companies of all kinds. This would be great, absolute anarchy across the Country, all cause you do not want to recognize Federal authority. IT is covered in the Constitution.

Here ya go, the very clause of the Constitution that applies.



LII: Constitution

Marriage is a public act and generally a Judicial proceeding as well ,not to mention a legal record.

Try looking at it from the other way around. Why let what one state allows dictate policy contrary to another state's laws?

Get off your absolutist high horse. I don't choose one extreme nor the other, and this isn't about me, nor what I do or do not recognize. You're right ... the Constitution covers it, in just the manner I said. All powers not specifically granted the Fed by the Constitution are given to the state. Plain and simple.

The legal precedent has been set, like it or not. Until or unless it is overturned by a higher court, or the Federal government chooses to usurp the power of the individual states via legislation, it stands as is.

You don't have to like it nor agree with it, but there you have it.

 

[tauriaphelion]

unrelated to the debate about consanguinity, that i inadvertently developed here, i was reading an article from 1996 in the NY times that discusses a bill that passed the panel in 1996. They state that this bill specifically gave the states the rights to refuse to acknowledge other states gay marriages, and that this bill would deny tax benefits to gay couples on the federal level. I can't find whether the bill actually passed or not anyone know? It said in the article that Clinton had said he would sign it into law if it came to his desk. Just curious i was so young i wasn't really following politics back in 96=)

Tauri Aphelion

 

[Gunny]

No bearing on the topic at hand, IMO.

Neither is whether or not gays present a danger, in your opinion. The topic is whether or not states have to recognize laws from other states if they are contrary to that state's laws.

 

[Gunny]

But the only context are things that don't actually exist anymore. How did it hold up against interracial marriage? Answer: Not at all.

Interracial marriage is not comparable to gay marriage. Race is not determined by behavior. The comparison is ridiculous.

 

[Gunny]

Jillian this very argument is why I have been on about the danger to our Constitution and Government. That some think it is ok for one State to refuse to recognize the legal papers of marriage from another State is DANGEROUS. That our Congress won't address the issue is more so. The only thing Congress has done is muddy the water by trying to pass a blanket exception for States to do what Steer claims they already can do.

That you think the Federal government can dictate from Washington what's best for me here is what's DANGEROUS. What works in Maine doesn't always work here.

Now you need to define some beliefs for me here because you've got me confused. I thought you were a conservative? The one Federal government trumps all is NOT a conservative belief. Small government and government at the lowest level? Remember THAT?

By your way of thinking, radical liberal states like California can dictate policy for the entire country just by making something legal and sending people off to different states to challenge their laws.

Congress has no business addressing issues that don't concern it.

 

[Ravi]

That's a misunderstanding of how the law works, Ravir.

And there's no "wishful thinking" about it, since I support gay marriage.

And we haven't even mentioned DOMA yet, which specifically states that the various states don't have to recognize it. If you look at the Full Faith and Credit clause in the Constitution you'll see that Congress is granted a degree of control over how it plays out.

Wishful thinking on Dalia's and the attorney general's part. Neither of which are in a position to rule on the constitutionality of a law.

Yes, congress has some control, but not if they violate the constitution.

 

[Ravi]

Interracial marriage is not comparable to gay marriage. Race is not determined by behavior. The comparison is ridiculous.

So?