Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
There is no Appeal to Ignorance of our own laws especially upon appeal to the general government:OK there are limitations to FFC. As outlined here:There are a lot of unconstitutional things going on today. That isnt an argument.I dont think so. During the Jim Crow era southern states were not forced to recognize mixed race marriages.Which would be the proper outcome. There is plenty of precedent for States having to recognize marriages that fall outside of their own requirements.
During the Jim Crow Era there were a lot of unconstitutional things going on. Plessey V. Fergueson allowed a lot of blatant ignoring of the equal protection clause.
You also have hall the differences in ages of consent, as well as first cousin marriage allowances between states, and you don't have them ignoring marriage certificates that don't meet their own requirements, they just won't issue their own unless you meet their requirements.
Obviously the differences in consent etc are not major enough for states to object to other states' standards. That would be the case here.
I don't think then content matters as much as the process. If a State uses its legislative power to change the marriage contract to include same sex couples, I can't see how another State can say "we won't recognize it" without violating the full faith and credit clause.
And I agree that a lot of unconstitutional things are going on today, however those of us who believe in strict construction can't throw it out the window (the way progressives do) when it doesn't suit us.
I would hope a Full Faith and Credit ruling in this case would also bolster cross-state CCW permitting.
Although the Court was engaged in statutory interpretation in Mills, the Court eventually characterized Mills as a constitutional decision, in the 1887 case of Chicago & Alton v. Wiggins.[13] During the following decades and centuries, the Supreme Court has recognized a "public policy exception" to both the Full Faith and Credit Clause and the accompanying federal statute. In 1939, the Court in Pacific Employers Insurance v. Industrial Accident wrote:
[T]here 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. See Wisconsin v. Pelican Insurance Co., 127 U.S. 265; Huntington v. Attrill, 146 U.S. 657; Finney v. Guy, 189 U.S. 335; see also Clarke v. Clarke, 178 U.S. 186; Olmsted v. Olmsted, 216 U.S. 386; Hood v. McGehee, 237 U.S. 611; cf. Gasquet v. Fenner, 247 U.S. 16. And in the case of statutes...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.[14]
Gay marriage would clearly fall into that. No state should be able to impose its standards on other states.
Not at all, especially when they don't teach that at Saturday or Sunday school.That is absurd in the context of the Laffer Curve.Yet there ya struggling to understand... .
Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.
It could not be less complex.
They REFUSE to understand "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".
It's not that they can't understand, they reject the truth.
Liberals are the most intellectually dishonest people in the world.
The right is worse for practicing the abomination of hypocrisy and carrying a Lords' name in vain.
Wrong. The federal government is tasked with securing our rights. The right to marry and the right to pursue happiness are choices we choose to pursue. Government, federal and state, cannot stand in the way of that for those who choose to pursue those rights.So what if it is a choice? A beautiful aspect of our rights, such as the right to pursue happiness, is our choice to pursue them. There is no legal excuse to allow the government to prevent that.They can. What truth are you planning to bring to light? And why didn't you share that truth with the lawyers arguing in front of SCOTUS yesterday.Unless the law says differently. Get used to it.
Laws can be overturned when the truth comes to light.
Get used to it
Read and learn. Your marketing of this so called "civil right" is a hoax. Bruce Jenner proved it's often a choice.
If it is choice it's not a civil rights issue and the choice belongs to the states to define.
Prime consideration needs to be given to etiquette.Not at all, especially when they don't teach that at Saturday or Sunday school.That is absurd in the context of the Laffer Curve.Yet there ya struggling to understand... .
Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.
It could not be less complex.
They REFUSE to understand "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".
It's not that they can't understand, they reject the truth.
Liberals are the most intellectually dishonest people in the world.
The right is worse for practicing the abomination of hypocrisy and carrying a Lords' name in vain.
OK there are limitations to FFC. As outlined here:There are a lot of unconstitutional things going on today. That isnt an argument.I dont think so. During the Jim Crow era southern states were not forced to recognize mixed race marriages.Which would be the proper outcome. There is plenty of precedent for States having to recognize marriages that fall outside of their own requirements.
During the Jim Crow Era there were a lot of unconstitutional things going on. Plessey V. Fergueson allowed a lot of blatant ignoring of the equal protection clause.
You also have hall the differences in ages of consent, as well as first cousin marriage allowances between states, and you don't have them ignoring marriage certificates that don't meet their own requirements, they just won't issue their own unless you meet their requirements.
Obviously the differences in consent etc are not major enough for states to object to other states' standards. That would be the case here.
I don't think then content matters as much as the process. If a State uses its legislative power to change the marriage contract to include same sex couples, I can't see how another State can say "we won't recognize it" without violating the full faith and credit clause.
And I agree that a lot of unconstitutional things are going on today, however those of us who believe in strict construction can't throw it out the window (the way progressives do) when it doesn't suit us.
I would hope a Full Faith and Credit ruling in this case would also bolster cross-state CCW permitting.
Although the Court was engaged in statutory interpretation in Mills, the Court eventually characterized Mills as a constitutional decision, in the 1887 case of Chicago & Alton v. Wiggins.[13] During the following decades and centuries, the Supreme Court has recognized a "public policy exception" to both the Full Faith and Credit Clause and the accompanying federal statute. In 1939, the Court in Pacific Employers Insurance v. Industrial Accident wrote:
[T]here 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. See Wisconsin v. Pelican Insurance Co., 127 U.S. 265; Huntington v. Attrill, 146 U.S. 657; Finney v. Guy, 189 U.S. 335; see also Clarke v. Clarke, 178 U.S. 186; Olmsted v. Olmsted, 216 U.S. 386; Hood v. McGehee, 237 U.S. 611; cf. Gasquet v. Fenner, 247 U.S. 16. And in the case of statutes...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.[14]
Gay marriage would clearly fall into that. No state should be able to impose its standards on other states.
Thats the point: a state cannot be forced to abandon its own standards in the face of another state's laws.OK there are limitations to FFC. As outlined here:There are a lot of unconstitutional things going on today. That isnt an argument.I dont think so. During the Jim Crow era southern states were not forced to recognize mixed race marriages.
During the Jim Crow Era there were a lot of unconstitutional things going on. Plessey V. Fergueson allowed a lot of blatant ignoring of the equal protection clause.
You also have hall the differences in ages of consent, as well as first cousin marriage allowances between states, and you don't have them ignoring marriage certificates that don't meet their own requirements, they just won't issue their own unless you meet their requirements.
Obviously the differences in consent etc are not major enough for states to object to other states' standards. That would be the case here.
I don't think then content matters as much as the process. If a State uses its legislative power to change the marriage contract to include same sex couples, I can't see how another State can say "we won't recognize it" without violating the full faith and credit clause.
And I agree that a lot of unconstitutional things are going on today, however those of us who believe in strict construction can't throw it out the window (the way progressives do) when it doesn't suit us.
I would hope a Full Faith and Credit ruling in this case would also bolster cross-state CCW permitting.
Although the Court was engaged in statutory interpretation in Mills, the Court eventually characterized Mills as a constitutional decision, in the 1887 case of Chicago & Alton v. Wiggins.[13] During the following decades and centuries, the Supreme Court has recognized a "public policy exception" to both the Full Faith and Credit Clause and the accompanying federal statute. In 1939, the Court in Pacific Employers Insurance v. Industrial Accident wrote:
[T]here 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. See Wisconsin v. Pelican Insurance Co., 127 U.S. 265; Huntington v. Attrill, 146 U.S. 657; Finney v. Guy, 189 U.S. 335; see also Clarke v. Clarke, 178 U.S. 186; Olmsted v. Olmsted, 216 U.S. 386; Hood v. McGehee, 237 U.S. 611; cf. Gasquet v. Fenner, 247 U.S. 16. And in the case of statutes...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.[14]
Gay marriage would clearly fall into that. No state should be able to impose its standards on other states.
it's not imposing standards on the State to issue a license, it just can't pretend the license doesn't exist. I have to read some of the opinions you listed to see if they are applicable or not.
Thats the point: a state cannot be forced to abandon its own standards in the face of another state's laws.OK there are limitations to FFC. As outlined here:There are a lot of unconstitutional things going on today. That isnt an argument.During the Jim Crow Era there were a lot of unconstitutional things going on. Plessey V. Fergueson allowed a lot of blatant ignoring of the equal protection clause.
You also have hall the differences in ages of consent, as well as first cousin marriage allowances between states, and you don't have them ignoring marriage certificates that don't meet their own requirements, they just won't issue their own unless you meet their requirements.
Obviously the differences in consent etc are not major enough for states to object to other states' standards. That would be the case here.
I don't think then content matters as much as the process. If a State uses its legislative power to change the marriage contract to include same sex couples, I can't see how another State can say "we won't recognize it" without violating the full faith and credit clause.
And I agree that a lot of unconstitutional things are going on today, however those of us who believe in strict construction can't throw it out the window (the way progressives do) when it doesn't suit us.
I would hope a Full Faith and Credit ruling in this case would also bolster cross-state CCW permitting.
Although the Court was engaged in statutory interpretation in Mills, the Court eventually characterized Mills as a constitutional decision, in the 1887 case of Chicago & Alton v. Wiggins.[13] During the following decades and centuries, the Supreme Court has recognized a "public policy exception" to both the Full Faith and Credit Clause and the accompanying federal statute. In 1939, the Court in Pacific Employers Insurance v. Industrial Accident wrote:
[T]here 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. See Wisconsin v. Pelican Insurance Co., 127 U.S. 265; Huntington v. Attrill, 146 U.S. 657; Finney v. Guy, 189 U.S. 335; see also Clarke v. Clarke, 178 U.S. 186; Olmsted v. Olmsted, 216 U.S. 386; Hood v. McGehee, 237 U.S. 611; cf. Gasquet v. Fenner, 247 U.S. 16. And in the case of statutes...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.[14]
Gay marriage would clearly fall into that. No state should be able to impose its standards on other states.
it's not imposing standards on the State to issue a license, it just can't pretend the license doesn't exist. I have to read some of the opinions you listed to see if they are applicable or not.
ROFLMNAO!Sure they can especially upon appeal to the general government: The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.
There is no appeal to reason for the unreasonable.You seem to be missing the concept and point as usual, Person the Right.
The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.
There Is no Appeal to Ignorance of the law.
I am going to ask you again, since you did not answer the simple question:Homophobes? Why is it homophobe in your book that I do not take feces coated dick into my mouth?
Wipe the froth off your lips, quit mumbling and come up with something making sense.
Oh, it's another case of a homophobe describing gay sex in graphics terms.
That's like a vegetarian who just can't stop talking about steak.
Wrong. The federal government is tasked with securing our rights. The right to marry and the right to pursue happiness are choices we choose to pursue. Government, federal and state, cannot stand in the way of that for those who choose to pursue those rights.So what if it is a choice? A beautiful aspect of our rights, such as the right to pursue happiness, is our choice to pursue them. There is no legal excuse to allow the government to prevent that.They can. What truth are you planning to bring to light? And why didn't you share that truth with the lawyers arguing in front of SCOTUS yesterday.Laws can be overturned when the truth comes to light.
Get used to it
Read and learn. Your marketing of this so called "civil right" is a hoax. Bruce Jenner proved it's often a choice.
If it is choice it's not a civil rights issue and the choice belongs to the states to define.
There is no appeal to reason for the unreasonable.You seem to be missing the concept and point as usual, Person the Right.
The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.
There Is no Appeal to Ignorance of the law.
And where the unreasonable believe that they can "interpret" the law to represent only their subjective needs, over the objective good... Civil war has been the natural prescription, for all of human history.
I am going to ask you again, since you did not answer the simple question:Homophobes? Why is it homophobe in your book that I do not take feces coated dick into my mouth?
Wipe the froth off your lips, quit mumbling and come up with something making sense.
Oh, it's another case of a homophobe describing gay sex in graphics terms.
That's like a vegetarian who just can't stop talking about steak.
Why is it homophobic not to suck on dicks with fecal matter on them? Explain that to me.
I am going to ask you again, since you did not answer the simple question:Homophobes? Why is it homophobe in your book that I do not take feces coated dick into my mouth?
Wipe the froth off your lips, quit mumbling and come up with something making sense.
Oh, it's another case of a homophobe describing gay sex in graphics terms.
That's like a vegetarian who just can't stop talking about steak.
Why is it homophobic not to suck on dicks with fecal matter on them? Explain that to me.
... same sex marriage ...
I am going to ask you again, since you did not answer the simple question:
Why is it homophobic not to suck on dicks with fecal matter on them? Explain that to me.
... same sex marriage ...
Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.
dude, your willful blindness and that form of incompetence and repugnance to our supreme law of the land in the name of Religious morals, is not any form of excuse.There is no appeal to reason for the unreasonable.You seem to be missing the concept and point as usual, Person the Right.
The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.
There Is no Appeal to Ignorance of the law.
And where the unreasonable believe that they can "interpret" the law to represent only their subjective needs, over the objective good... Civil war has been the natural prescription, for all of human history.
LOL! See... You feel that because blacks, women, the disabled and seniors got civil protections; that you who choose to concede to your deviant base instincts, MUST GET YOURS TOO... .
The problem ya have there is that your deviant reasoning is twisting law. And when ya do that... You set yourself up for losing all protections afforded by untwisted law. And given that you're an otherwise insignificant minority... That is tantamount to suicide.
