Matthew Best
Penultimate Amazing
I just wanted to say thanks to Brown for all his excellent posts in this thread. I feel like I've had a (free!) legal education.
Activist Judge Overturns Iowa AntiGay Marriage Law
- Thread starter DoubtingStephen
- Start date
Seconded.
ETA: It is ironic that the posts by Brown are a superb addition to a sceptic's forum whereas the posts by Skeptic in the other thread are...well...the color is brown...
Tin Foil Timothy
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2008
- Messages
- 3,089
Not like you to be prejudiced sparky. I'm disappointed.
Dr Adequate
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2004
- Messages
- 17,766
So ... Article IV, section 1:
Does that mean that if you get gay-married in Iowa, you remain gay-married in Utah? If not, why not?
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
Does that mean that if you get gay-married in Iowa, you remain gay-married in Utah? If not, why not?
Tsukasa Buddha
Other (please write in)
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2006
- Messages
- 15,302
The Defence of Marriage Act rejected this... Not sure why it isn't unconstitutional, but there you have it.
Dr Adequate
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2004
- Messages
- 17,766
How do we know that it isn't unconstitutional? Has there been a case yet?
Don't think there has been a case yet, but it is only a matter of time. Once it hits the courts, it will be very difficult to argue that a law that says states may ignore contracts from other states is constitutional. On the other hand, Bush vs Gore showed that the US Supreme Court is not immune to fitting legal arguments to a preferred outcome.
Alt+F4
diabolical globalist
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2006
- Messages
- 10,017
Yup, that was a big mess. The insurance company couldn't figure out how a civil union was different than a marriage in practice, but since the State of New Jersey had given them different nomenclatures the insurance company felt it had the legal right to deny the civil unioned couple heath insurance.
Similar situation if you work for the City of New York. If you're married the City will cover your spouse's health insurance. If you're in a domestic partnership (which is somehow different or the same as a civil union - I can't tell
) the employee has the partner's health insurance costs added to their income.So much for separate but equal.
linusrichard
Master Poster
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2007
- Messages
- 2,710
There oughtta be a law that says that a law called the "Defense of Marriage Act" can't be used to invalidate a legal marriage. Oh well.
On a more serious note, this is one reason I hate referring to marriage as a contract. Yes, it's like a contract in some respects. Yes, it is sometimes treated like a contract. But there are several reasons why it doesn't make sense to call it a contract. And in this case, if you treat marriage as a contract, you eliminate any constitutional problem with giving full faith and credit to another state's marriage, since there is no constitutional problem in general with a state refusing to give effect to a contract or contract provision that would be valid in another state.
Congratulations on your 1000th post.
However, there is a problem with a state refusing to honor a contract of another state. As noted by Dr. A:
If people could change the rules by crossing state lines there would be chaos.
linusrichard
Master Poster
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2007
- Messages
- 2,710
Thanks! I didn't even notice.
A contract is neither a public Act, record, or judicial proceeding.
Arguably, there is chaos.
I'm actually taking a class right now on this very subject. A typical case involves A and B who make a contract in state X, and then there's a suit in state Y, and the contract, or a provision thereof, is illegal in state Y. So the Y court has to decide whether to apply X's law or Y's law, and thus whether to validate or invalidate the contract or provision. If the Constitution required Full Faith & Credit to contracts, this would be a much shorter and easier class.
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2001
- Messages
- 21,821
You forgot the other option: doesn't care what the decision says.
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2001
- Messages
- 21,821
My favorite part of the decision
I love this. It really hammers on the "Think of the children!!!!!" nonsense. Basically the court is saying, "You don't worry about the children when it comes to other marriages, why are you singling out gay people?" It clearly indicates the homosexual discrimination.
I love this. It really hammers on the "Think of the children!!!!!" nonsense. Basically the court is saying, "You don't worry about the children when it comes to other marriages, why are you singling out gay people?" It clearly indicates the homosexual discrimination.
rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
One I like is "They can't have childern", yet infertile women (and men) are allowed to marry--as are people who declare an intent NOT to have childern.
Shall we dissolve THEIR marriages?
Where's the popcorn?
And yet, you cited the reason, Dr A.
Lets review that again:
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
It's not going to be a pretty case, shall we say. Congress has proscribed a manner (not at all) and an effect (absolutely none). This may not seem fully within the spirit of the law, and it's really just not, but it's hardly cut and dried.
Believe me, there are, at this very moment, people who in their spare time are researching the intent of every Founding father, as expressed in all letters, official communication, unofficial communication, and private writings, as to the point of that particular clause, and whether this would fall under 'their intent' or not.
Brown
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2001
- Messages
- 12,984
As I have mentioned previously, Iowans in modern times resisted efforts to amend the Iowa Constitution to provide equal rights for women. In part, this resistance was grounded in mistrust of trial lawyers who would use such a constitutional amendment to upset the apple cart of Iowa's jurisprudence.
In part, the concern was that women ought to be kept in their place. No kidding. Some of the propaganda used to defeat the State ERA was premised upon maintaining "traditional" and perceived Biblical sexual roles. In other words, some people in the second half of the Twentieth Century actually argued that women should not be awarded equal rights because women were not really equal to men as human beings. God said so, they said.
There were also a few bat-spit crazy folks who said (yelled, would be more like it) that an ERA would give legal rights (gasp!) to those God-cursed sodomites. After all, the amendments said, in effect, that there should be no discrimination on account of "sex" (in one version) or "gender" (in another version). The fear was that such language in the Constitution could encompass sexual orientation.
What a conventional ERA would PROBABLY have done is to convert the Court's standard of scrutiny in gender-based discrimination cases from "intermediate" to "strict."
A few years back, Iowans adopted a more laid-back ERA, recognizing that "All men and women are, by nature, free and equal...." The words "and women" were added. That was the extent of the amendment.
Now Justice Cady quotes that very language as part of the opinion (page 19). He does not rub anyone's face in it, of course, nor does he mention any constitutional amendment to add "and women."
But oh, how the bat-spit crazies are wailing and gnashing their teeth.
Even many in the so-called "mainstream" religions are showing a stunning ignorance about the law of the State and what the opinion actually said.
According to the Des Moines Register (and other sources), Catholic leaders are upset and say that the decision will grievously harm children. From my standpoint, I don't think the Catholic Church has any moral authority to lecture anyone about hurting children.
In part, the concern was that women ought to be kept in their place. No kidding. Some of the propaganda used to defeat the State ERA was premised upon maintaining "traditional" and perceived Biblical sexual roles. In other words, some people in the second half of the Twentieth Century actually argued that women should not be awarded equal rights because women were not really equal to men as human beings. God said so, they said.
There were also a few bat-spit crazy folks who said (yelled, would be more like it) that an ERA would give legal rights (gasp!) to those God-cursed sodomites. After all, the amendments said, in effect, that there should be no discrimination on account of "sex" (in one version) or "gender" (in another version). The fear was that such language in the Constitution could encompass sexual orientation.
What a conventional ERA would PROBABLY have done is to convert the Court's standard of scrutiny in gender-based discrimination cases from "intermediate" to "strict."
A few years back, Iowans adopted a more laid-back ERA, recognizing that "All men and women are, by nature, free and equal...." The words "and women" were added. That was the extent of the amendment.
Now Justice Cady quotes that very language as part of the opinion (page 19). He does not rub anyone's face in it, of course, nor does he mention any constitutional amendment to add "and women."
But oh, how the bat-spit crazies are wailing and gnashing their teeth.
Even many in the so-called "mainstream" religions are showing a stunning ignorance about the law of the State and what the opinion actually said.
According to the Des Moines Register (and other sources), Catholic leaders are upset and say that the decision will grievously harm children. From my standpoint, I don't think the Catholic Church has any moral authority to lecture anyone about hurting children.
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2006
- Messages
- 54,545
Interesting that intersexed individuals do not have equal rights in Iowa.
Dr Adequate
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2004
- Messages
- 17,766
Yes. Now the question is can Congress "by general Laws prescribe" that no "Faith and Credit" shall be given whatsoever, and that "the Effect thereof" should be zip?
---
Oh, and here's a puzzle. If "Full Faith and Credit" doesn't apply to gay marriage, is there anything to stop someone from marrying one man in Iowa and another man in Vermont?
It would be amusing if DOMA made gay bigamy legal ...
As I already laid out, that's exactly the dilemma. It does not appear to be fitting exactly within the spirit of the wording, but it does appear to be fitting exactly within the most ambiguous interpretations of the wording.
Yes, local state laws. I'd assume that states already have statutes about recognizing marriages made in other states, and if both allow gay marriages, then both are going to recognize the potential bigamist as married.
The DOMA only said that states do not have to recognize gay marriage, not that they MUST NOT.