There's where it all went wrong.. I never said the States WOULD recognize Same Sex Marriages. I said.. Read back if you need to, that The Full Faith and Credit Clause was the REASON DOMA was passed.

I fully understand that there will be changes at the Federal Level, because DOMA only applied to the Federal Level, with the exception of the Full Faith and Credit Clause which may or may not apply. I'm simply stating it is unknown whether they will force it or not...

But for Your information You are wrong. The Full Faith and Credit Clause Did apply before DOMA .

The clause's application to state-sanctioned same-sex marriages, civil unions, and domestic partnerships is unresolved, as is its relationship to the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment.

__________________

I'm not wrong... o.O Jesus. I fully admit that the INTENT of the LEGISLATURE was to prevent FF&C from being used as an argument. The problem is that only the uneducated would be using FF&C as an argument because even without DOMA, if Texas didn't want to recognize same-sex marriage it could ban it under state law and refuse to recognize it in the public policy exception to FF&C.

Hell, your quote says that the issue was unresolved. Why? Because the states didn't HAVE to exert their FF&C public policy exception. DOMA did that for them. But go back and learn from history and understand that you don't need something like DOMA to get a FF&C public policy exception for marriages. The majority of the southern states were doing it long before Loving. The Loving decision had nothing to do with FF&C and so the problem remains. You eliminate DOMA and the states don't have to do diddly squat but assert their FF&C public policy exception.

__________________
The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so.

-- Hitler, April 11 1942

It wasn't an argument. It was fear of the FF&C that drove them to passing DOMA in the first place. The FF&C has never been challenged in the Supreme Court as being applied to a same sex marriage so no one was sure how it would go. They were afraid because of the FF&C so they passed DOMA and changed the FF&C as well as added a Federal Definition to Marriage.


Hell, your quote says that the issue was unresolved. Why? Because the states didn't HAVE to exert their FF&C public policy exception. DOMA did that for them. But go back and learn from history and understand that you don't need something like DOMA to get a FF&C public policy exception for marriages. The majority of the southern states were doing it long before Loving. The Loving decision had nothing to do with FF&C and so the problem remains. You eliminate DOMA and the states don't have to do diddly squat but assert their FF&C public policy exception.[/QUOTE]

That totally depends on what exactly The SCOTUS is going to rule on the case. If it is a case about just DOMA and the fact that DOMA is unconstitutional I would agree. Marriage is a State Issue, not a Federal issue. However if the SCOTUS rules that banning gay marriages is unconstitutional then all States will have to comply... and there will be no further need for the FF&C because it would be legal in every state....

__________________

Irrational fear legally/historically speaking.

Well, we're pretty sure as to exactly how it would go. A state asserts their public policy exception. That exception would be challenged first in state court. Then if the challenge wasn't successful, in federal court. And then it would have to get to the Supreme Court for the Court to say that they couldn't use the public policy exception. HOWEVER, that's going to happen anyway. With or without DOMA.

DOMA didn't change the FF&C. o.O It just said that states didn't have to apply it. Which was the case to begin with considering the public policy exception.


Which is precisely the point. And the Court doesn't reach arguments it doesn't have to.

So it's going to be more DOMA even if DOMA is gone.

__________________
The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so.

-- Hitler, April 11 1942

Progress.. Only one disagreement left....

The FF&C Clause as written in the Constitution...

Full faith and credit ought to be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings, of every other state; and the legislature shall, by general laws, prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings, shall be proved, and the effect which judgments, obtained in one state, shall have in another.


The FF&C as written into the DOMA Law. They never changed the Constitution but they did change the wording of the Law because this Clause was the Fear Driving the Anti-Gay factions into passing DOMA in the first place.

Section 2. Powers reserved to the states
No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.

__________________

Right... you're starting to see that FF&C isn't the catchall you tried to assert in your first post.

Repealing DOMA changes the law back to where it was pre-DOMA. That's what repealing does. And being struck down as unConstitutional is an effective repeal. This is not an amend sort of situation.

So as I've said, when you get rid of DOMA, you go back to the law of the land BEFORE DOMA. That means that the states can just assert their public policy exception to the FF&C which was in place BEFORE DOMA.

__________________
The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so.

-- Hitler, April 11 1942

See now you're just looking for an argument where none exists. I never said nor implied that the FF&C was the catchall, I was bringing it up because it is a part of the overall discussion and I was pointing out that once the SCOTUS overturns DOMA the states would once again fall back on the FF&C...
Then you tried to make the claim that the FF&C doesn't apply... which you would still be wrong.

There is no Public Policy Exception to the FF&C where Same Sex Marriage is concerned. What will happen is that a married same sex couple will move to a state that does not allow Gay marriage and then the Court battle will decide whether or not they can use a Public Policy Exception. The FF&C is written into the Constitution, States can't just ignore it.

__________________

You say there's not. That's not for you to say. That's for the Courts to say. And the only way that the Courts will say is when the state claims their public policy exception and it's litigated. And EVEN THEN it might not reach the issue of FF&C, it could turn out just like Loving...

So, as I said, the dream of the FF&C just magically applying post DOMA is nothing more than a fairy tale.

__________________
The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so.

-- Hitler, April 11 1942

Coulda woulda, shoulda, the point is there's not. At least not until the Law is restored to it's original intent and then challenged in court.

According to the Constitution I'm afraid you would be mistaken. The FF&C does apply just as it did before DOMA was passed. When/if DOMA is over turned on constitutional Grounds then the FF&C will once again come into play. Most likely it won't last very long because it will most assuredly be challenged rather quickly by one or more states.

__________________

Jesus Christ you're dense.

1. You sound like Scalia when you say stuff like "original intent".
a. You don't know what the original intent of the Framers were in crafting the FF&C anymore than the 9 people on the Court today or ever.
b. Whatever the "original intent" of the Framers was in crafting the FF&C is void when you look at the 200+ years of jurisprudence that followed.

2. You read the plain wording of the Constitution and you think that you understand it. It's somewhat cute and naive.
a. While you might think that the FF&C would come into play, you'd be wrong. The FF&C can only be applicable if the states don't attempt to assert their public policy exception. You are living in a dreamland if you think that they aren't going to do this.
b. Like before Loving, the states will assert their public policy exception to same-sex marriage. And they will be able to do so until there is a "Loving"-type decision on same-sex marriage.

So no, when DOMA is found to be unConstitutional, FF&C doesn't magically apply. It never has. Just doesn't work that way.

__________________
The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so.

-- Hitler, April 11 1942