homosexual's file suit in Tn

[The Rabbi]

"The Full Faith and Credit Clause—Article IV, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution—provides that the various states must recognize legislative acts, public records, and judicial decisions of the other states within the United States. It states that "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State." The statute that implements the clause, 28 U.S.C.A. § 1738, further specifies that "a state's preclusion rules should control matters originally litigated in that state." The Full Faith and Credit Clause ensures that judicial decisions rendered by the courts in one state are recognized and honored in every other state. It also prevents parties from moving to another state to escape enforcement of a judgment or to relitigate a controversy already decided elsewhere, a practice known as forum shopping.

In drafting the Full Faith and Credit Clause, the Framers of the Constitution were motivated by a desire to unify their new country while preserving the autonomy of the states. To that end, they sought to guarantee that judgments rendered by the courts of one state would not be ignored by the courts of other states. The Supreme Court reiterated the Framers' intent when it held that the Full Faith and Credit Clause precluded any further litigation of a question previously decided by an Illinois court in Milwaukee County v. M. E. White Co., 296 U.S. 268, 56 S. Ct. 229, 80 L. Ed. 220 (1935). The Court held that by including the clause in the Constitution, the Framers intended to make the states "integral parts of a single nation throughout which a remedy upon a just obligation might be demanded as of right, irrespective of the state of its origin.""



Full Faith and Credit Clause legal definition of Full Faith and Credit Clause. Full Faith and Credit Clause synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

Note that it applies t litigation, not marriage licenses. States have had broad power to set marriage requirements for some time.

States not recognizing marriages issued in other states and the 14th amendment will lead to gay marriage being the law of the land

It will lead to the Third American Revolution.

 

[rightwinger]

Note that it applies t litigation, not marriage licenses. States have had broad power to set marriage requirements for some time.

States not recognizing marriages issued in other states and the 14th amendment will lead to gay marriage being the law of the land

It will lead to the Third American Revolution.

Why?

 

[9thIDdoc]

"The Full Faith and Credit Clause—Article IV, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution—provides that the various states must recognize legislative acts, public records, and judicial decisions of the other states within the United States. It states that "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State." The statute that implements the clause, 28 U.S.C.A. § 1738, further specifies that "a state's preclusion rules should control matters originally litigated in that state." The Full Faith and Credit Clause ensures that judicial decisions rendered by the courts in one state are recognized and honored in every other state. It also prevents parties from moving to another state to escape enforcement of a judgment or to relitigate a controversy already decided elsewhere, a practice known as forum shopping.

In drafting the Full Faith and Credit Clause, the Framers of the Constitution were motivated by a desire to unify their new country while preserving the autonomy of the states. To that end, they sought to guarantee that judgments rendered by the courts of one state would not be ignored by the courts of other states. The Supreme Court reiterated the Framers' intent when it held that the Full Faith and Credit Clause precluded any further litigation of a question previously decided by an Illinois court in Milwaukee County v. M. E. White Co., 296 U.S. 268, 56 S. Ct. 229, 80 L. Ed. 220 (1935). The Court held that by including the clause in the Constitution, the Framers intended to make the states "integral parts of a single nation throughout which a remedy upon a just obligation might be demanded as of right, irrespective of the state of its origin.""



Full Faith and Credit Clause legal definition of Full Faith and Credit Clause. Full Faith and Credit Clause synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

Circular logic. If State marriage laws did in fact apply to all the states Tennessee's laws would not have allowed their marriage in the first place. Either way it's still a case of one State passing laws to govern people in another state without representation. You might remember we had a bit of a problem with England doing that. Civil rights deserve to be respected and that most certainly applies to my right to elect representatives to the government that makes the laws that apply to me.

 

[thereisnospoon]

4 same-sex couples sue Tennessee over gay marriage

God damnit! Not in the south damnit! Keep that garbage up north or out west...we can not let these queers get a foot hold in the south...this shit goes through I will be looking for a different state to move to.

Don't forget the Hebes, Spics, *******, Japs, Chinks, etc...
You are one despicable individual. There is a place for you in Russia....THE most tolerant nation on planet Earth.....
You're still here?

 

[thereisnospoon]

I hope they win. They were already married and TN has the nerve to nullify it?

Politically, I do not agree with you on most topics. However, I am with you on this one.
I cannot feature this kind of ignorance.
I reject it.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"The Full Faith and Credit Clause—Article IV, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution—provides that the various states must recognize legislative acts, public records, and judicial decisions of the other states within the United States. It states that "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State." The statute that implements the clause, 28 U.S.C.A. § 1738, further specifies that "a state's preclusion rules should control matters originally litigated in that state." The Full Faith and Credit Clause ensures that judicial decisions rendered by the courts in one state are recognized and honored in every other state. It also prevents parties from moving to another state to escape enforcement of a judgment or to relitigate a controversy already decided elsewhere, a practice known as forum shopping.

In drafting the Full Faith and Credit Clause, the Framers of the Constitution were motivated by a desire to unify their new country while preserving the autonomy of the states. To that end, they sought to guarantee that judgments rendered by the courts of one state would not be ignored by the courts of other states. The Supreme Court reiterated the Framers' intent when it held that the Full Faith and Credit Clause precluded any further litigation of a question previously decided by an Illinois court in Milwaukee County v. M. E. White Co., 296 U.S. 268, 56 S. Ct. 229, 80 L. Ed. 220 (1935). The Court held that by including the clause in the Constitution, the Framers intended to make the states "integral parts of a single nation throughout which a remedy upon a just obligation might be demanded as of right, irrespective of the state of its origin.""



Full Faith and Credit Clause legal definition of Full Faith and Credit Clause. Full Faith and Credit Clause synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

Note that it applies t litigation, not marriage licenses. States have had broad power to set marriage requirements for some time.

That’s not at issue, and it never was.

Again, however a state might configure its marriage laws, whatever the requirements, same-sex couples are qualified in all 50 states to access those laws, or the laws associated with being married.

 

[thereisnospoon]

homosexual's file suit in Tn

Why did you make homosexuals possessive?

Showing not only is he ignorant about those not exactly like him, but ignorant as to proper English grammar.

 

[thereisnospoon]

and TN has the nerve to nullify it?

That's because it was the moral and ethical thing to do in order to preserve the traditional marriage and family values that built and sustained this nation from it's inception.

What is moral and ethical about it? It was also traditional to burn witches at the stake. Not all traditions are good things.

Ok....That's really a stretch...
Don't go pounding on traditional marriage and family just to get your point across.
You were doing well.

 

[9thIDdoc]

Again, however a state might configure its marriage laws, whatever the requirements, same-sex couples are qualified in all 50 states to access those laws, or the laws associated with being married.

And, again, one of those laws in many places is that the person you marry must be of the opposite sex so you are wrong.

 

[thereisnospoon]

and TN has the nerve to nullify it?

That's because it was the moral and ethical thing to do in order to preserve the traditional marriage and family values that built and sustained this nation from it's inception.

You mean those "family values" that enslaved blacks?

The traditional family, married heterosexual couple, promotes slavery?
Please explain how you make that leap..

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

No one is denying gay couples any civil liberties. There is no inherent civil right to have an abnormality treated as norman behavior. It has nothing to with the civil rights of black people because one is skin color and another is behavior. There is no inherent civil right to engage in
behavior.

Of course same-sex couples’ civil liberties are being violated, they have the civil right to equal protection of the law in the context of substantive due process.

Tennessee is denying them that.

And being homosexual is not an ‘abnormality,’ as the 5th Amendment’s Liberty Clause guarantees each person the right to individual self-expression, to determine for himself his own personal identity free from interference by the state.

The sad fact is this was once a conservative principle, lost to conservatives decades ago, a result of the madness that is the social right and Christian fundamentalism.

 

[thereisnospoon]

It won't be long anyway

Homosexual marriage will be the law of the land within ten years

Perhaps...

 

[thereisnospoon]

I hope they win. They were already married and TN has the nerve to nullify it?

Sorry but as Tennesseeans we have the right to make our own State laws. If you like your State's law better than ours nobody is going to force you to move here. When in Rome...

Unless those laws violate the Constitution

This is not a constitutional issue.
And no matter how much you wish it, the issue is up to each individual State.

 

[Unkotare]

"... the State [of Virginia] contends that, because its miscegenation statutes punish equally both the white and the Negro participants in an interracial marriage, these statutes, despite their reliance on racial classifications, do not constitute an invidious discrimination based upon race. The second argument advanced by the State assumes the validity of its equal application theory. The argument is that, if the Equal Protection Clause does not outlaw miscegenation statutes because of their reliance on racial classifications, the question of constitutionality would thus become whether there was any rational basis for a State to treat interracial marriages differently from other marriages. On this question, the State argues, the scientific evidence is substantially in doubt and, consequently, this Court should defer to the wisdom of the state legislature in adopting its policy of discouraging interracial marriages. ..."


The battle over inter-racial marriage in the U.S.

Va had it right.

Evidently not, moron.

 

[Unkotare]

"The Full Faith and Credit Clause—Article IV, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution—provides that the various states must recognize legislative acts, public records, and judicial decisions of the other states within the United States. It states that "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State." The statute that implements the clause, 28 U.S.C.A. § 1738, further specifies that "a state's preclusion rules should control matters originally litigated in that state." The Full Faith and Credit Clause ensures that judicial decisions rendered by the courts in one state are recognized and honored in every other state. It also prevents parties from moving to another state to escape enforcement of a judgment or to relitigate a controversy already decided elsewhere, a practice known as forum shopping.

In drafting the Full Faith and Credit Clause, the Framers of the Constitution were motivated by a desire to unify their new country while preserving the autonomy of the states. To that end, they sought to guarantee that judgments rendered by the courts of one state would not be ignored by the courts of other states. The Supreme Court reiterated the Framers' intent when it held that the Full Faith and Credit Clause precluded any further litigation of a question previously decided by an Illinois court in Milwaukee County v. M. E. White Co., 296 U.S. 268, 56 S. Ct. 229, 80 L. Ed. 220 (1935). The Court held that by including the clause in the Constitution, the Framers intended to make the states "integral parts of a single nation throughout which a remedy upon a just obligation might be demanded as of right, irrespective of the state of its origin.""



Full Faith and Credit Clause legal definition of Full Faith and Credit Clause. Full Faith and Credit Clause synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

Note that it applies t litigation, not marriage licenses. States have had broad power to set marriage requirements for some time.

"The Full Faith and Credit Clause has also been invoked to recognize the validity of a marriage."

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Again, however a state might configure its marriage laws, whatever the requirements, same-sex couples are qualified in all 50 states to access those laws, or the laws associated with being married.

And, again, one of those laws in many places is that the person you marry must be of the opposite sex so you are wrong.

Wrong again.

Well over a generation ago, longer in some states, the doctrine of coverture was abandoned; marriage in all 50 states is a contract between two equal partners:

As states moved to recognize the equality of the sexes, they eliminated laws and practices like coverture that had made gender a proxy for a spouse’s role within a marriage. FF 26-27, 32. Marriage was thus transformed from a male-dominated institution into an institution recognizing men and women as equals. Id. Yet, individuals retained the right to marry; that right did not become different simply because the institution of marriage became compatible with gender equality.

The evidence shows that the movement of marriage away from a gendered institution and toward an institution free from state-mandated gender roles reflects an evolution in the understanding of gender rather than a change in marriage. The evidence did not show any historical purpose for excluding same-sex couples from marriage, as states have never
required spouses to have an ability or willingness to procreate in order to marry. FF 21. Rather, the exclusion exists as an artifact of a time when the genders were seen as having distinct roles in society and in marriage. That time has passed.

Gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage; marriage under law is a union of
equals.

Hollingsworth v. Perry

 

[Unkotare]

Note that it applies t litigation, not marriage licenses. States have had broad power to set marriage requirements for some time.

States not recognizing marriages issued in other states and the 14th amendment will lead to gay marriage being the law of the land

It will lead to the Third American Revolution.

Don't be ridiculous.

 

[Unkotare]

"The Full Faith and Credit Clause—Article IV, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution—provides that the various states must recognize legislative acts, public records, and judicial decisions of the other states within the United States. It states that "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State." The statute that implements the clause, 28 U.S.C.A. § 1738, further specifies that "a state's preclusion rules should control matters originally litigated in that state." The Full Faith and Credit Clause ensures that judicial decisions rendered by the courts in one state are recognized and honored in every other state. It also prevents parties from moving to another state to escape enforcement of a judgment or to relitigate a controversy already decided elsewhere, a practice known as forum shopping.

In drafting the Full Faith and Credit Clause, the Framers of the Constitution were motivated by a desire to unify their new country while preserving the autonomy of the states. To that end, they sought to guarantee that judgments rendered by the courts of one state would not be ignored by the courts of other states. The Supreme Court reiterated the Framers' intent when it held that the Full Faith and Credit Clause precluded any further litigation of a question previously decided by an Illinois court in Milwaukee County v. M. E. White Co., 296 U.S. 268, 56 S. Ct. 229, 80 L. Ed. 220 (1935). The Court held that by including the clause in the Constitution, the Framers intended to make the states "integral parts of a single nation throughout which a remedy upon a just obligation might be demanded as of right, irrespective of the state of its origin.""



Full Faith and Credit Clause legal definition of Full Faith and Credit Clause. Full Faith and Credit Clause synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

Circular logic. If State marriage laws did in fact apply to all the states Tennessee's laws would not have allowed their marriage in the first place. Either way it's still a case of one State passing laws to govern people in another state without representation. You might remember we had a bit of a problem with England doing that. Civil rights deserve to be respected and that most certainly applies to my right to elect representatives to the government that makes the laws that apply to me.

Don't blame me. I quoted, not adjudicated.

 

[Unkotare]

And being homosexual is not an ‘abnormality,’ .

Of course it is. Regardless of considerations of the law, social mores, etc. it is obviously not the norm. You don't have to apply any value judgment to the term for it to be accurate.

 

[bodecea]

And being homosexual is not an ‘abnormality,’ .

Of course it is. Regardless of considerations of the law, social mores, etc. it is obviously not the norm. You don't have to apply any value judgment to the term for it to be accurate.

It's the new "left handed".