USSC to hear cases on gay marriage.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/supreme-court-hear-gay-marriage-cases-201555862.html

My early prediction = split on the two cases.

They strike down DMA and require the feds to recoginize any state marriages. (pro-gay)

But say that gay marriage is not a fundemental right thus prop 8 is okay (anti-gay)

Leave open if CA (or other state without gay marriage) needs to recognize a lawful  gay marriage from another state.  They don't have to answer that question to decide these two cases.

[Spider-Dan]

The "full faith and credit" clause of the Constitution (which mandates that all states accept things like birth certificates as necessarily valid if they come from another state) will require the SCOTUS to rule on whether or not states are forced to recognize marriages performed in other states (part of DOMA).  If DOMA goes down, Prop. 8 becomes much less relevant; it just means that homosexuals will need to travel to SSM states to get married, which their home state will then be required to honor.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

I agree with you that FF&C ought require that all states accept marriage certificates from all other states.  However, being neither of the cases in front of the court require such a ruling,I predict they sidestep the issue and rule on DOMA based on either conflicting with the 10th amendment or being valid under the supremecy clause. 

[bsmooth]

Couldn't that clause be used for legally obtained concealed weapons permits?

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

Couldn't that clause be used for legally obtained concealed weapons permits?

Which clause are you refering to?  - full faith and credit, supremecy, 10th amendment, equal protection.  Lots of clauses have been discussed in this thread.

[Spider-Dan]

Couldn't that clause be used for legally obtained concealed weapons permits?

I believe that those permits give you permission to carry a weapon in the state of [x].  In contrast, birth and marriage certificate are not "permission" as much as they are "recognition."  It's not like your marriage (or your birth) only exists in the state of Florida.

[badger6]

I believe that those permits give you permission to carry a weapon in the state of [x].  In contrast, birth and marriage certificate are not "permission" as much as they are "recognition."  It's not like your marriage (or your birth) only exists in the state of Florida.

Those permits give you permission to conceal carry a firearm. Thirty five states have "recognition" reciprocity of a Florida CCW. And that's for concealed carry which is usually regulated. Some states allow open carry as a right without any licensing or permits either through legislation or by state constitutions.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

Hypothetical.

New York like all states prohibits bigomy.  New York allows gay marriage. 

Florida doesn't recoginize gay marriage. 

Anne and Betty get married in NY.

They then move to Florida and break up.  Florida will not allow them to get a divorce b/c they don't recognize the marriage.

Betty meets Charlie and falls in love.  Florida doesn't recoginize Betty's prior marriage so they permit Betty and Charlie to marry in Florida.

Betty and Charlie move to New York.

Now what?  Does NY arrest Betty on Bigomy?  Not recoginze the Florida marriage? 

[Sunstroke]

^^^ The local New York authorities should require Anne, Betty and Charlie to make a ménage à trois video.

Yeah, that's the ticket!

[badger6]

Hypothetical.

New York like all states prohibits bigomy.  New York allows gay marriage. 

Florida doesn't recoginize gay marriage. 

Anne and Betty get married in NY.

They then move to Florida and break up.  Florida will not allow them to get a divorce b/c they don't recognize the marriage.

Betty meets Charlie and falls in love.  Florida doesn't recoginize Betty's prior marriage so they permit Betty and Charlie to marry in Florida.

Betty and Charlie move to New York.

Now what?  Does NY arrest Betty on Bigomy?  Not recoginze the Florida marriage? 

I would say bigamy. A fix would for them to just go to New York to get the divorce. It also wouldn't hurt to let Charlie know that she is gay before marrying him, lol. However that begs the question. If you're going to allow gay marriage. Why not bigamy ? Why not marrying your pet or farmyard animals ? Why not marrying your TV ?

[Fau Teixeira]

If you're going to allow gay marriage. Why not bigamy ? Why not marrying your pet or farmyard animals ? Why not marrying your TV ?

in answer to your question (which i see alot from the anti-gay marriage crowd) .. in order:
yes,
no,
no

if you need me to elaborate on the whys, just let me know and i will

[Sunstroke]

...if you need me to elaborate on the whys, just let me know and i will

I'd be interested in hearing your position on bigamy...

Why not marrying your TV ?

I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that you wouldn't marry a colored TV...

[badger6]

in answer to your question (which i see alot from the anti-gay marriage crowd) .. in order:
yes,
no,
no

if you need me to elaborate on the whys, just let me know and i will

Yes, please elaborate.

I wouldn't say that I'm anti gay marriage. What a couple queers want to do with each other in private isn't my business. I'm kind of anti-marriage all together. I just don't get the big deal. If two people want to live together and be committed, do it. What does the marriage part have to do with it ? Why the big fuss over nothing ?

[Spider-Dan]

Hypothetical.

New York like all states prohibits bigomy.  New York allows gay marriage. 

Florida doesn't recoginize gay marriage. 

Anne and Betty get married in NY.

They then move to Florida and break up.  Florida will not allow them to get a divorce b/c they don't recognize the marriage.

Then they never got a divorce decree, which means they are still married.  At this point, the rest is no different than if Betty went from NYC to Miami on spring break and got married to a guy.

All of this is no different than if a couple got straight married in, say, Cuba, then came to the U.S.  AFAIK, the only international treaty on marriage recognition is the 1978 Hague Convention on Marriages, and the only signatories to that treaty are Portugal, Luxembourg, Egypt, Australia, Finland and the Netherlands.

[Fau Teixeira]

I'd be interested in hearing your position on bigamy...

my position isn't on bigamy per-se .. or polygamy in general, but rather on consent.

If all parties consent, then i'm of the view that if the government should stay out of the business of prohibiting legal benefits for a pseudo- limited partnership between people.

I'm not arguing that it isn't a complex issue from a legal/tax standpoint, but as a base principle personal consent should trump accounting difficulties.