Originally Posted by dabateman

Jesus Christ you're dense.

Originally Posted by dabateman

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.

Originally Posted by dabateman

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.

Originally Posted by dabateman

2. You read the plain wording of the Constitution and you think that you understand it. It's somewhat cute and naive.

Originally Posted by dabateman

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.

Originally Posted by dabateman

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.

Originally Posted by dabateman

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

Originally Posted by Xcali

My Name is not Jesus Christ...



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."

That same Court disagrees with you....



There has not been a court Challenge to the FF&C concerning same sex marriages in the 200 + years... Therefore it is not void.



No I know what the SCOTUS has said and it's their job to interpret the Constitution. For your information the Constitution wasn't written in a secret code , it was written in English... It says what it says... That's not my opinion it's just a fact.



And as I said it will only last until
a: There is a challenge to the public Policy exception in a court of Law
b: The SCOTUS rules that banning same sex Marriage is unconstitutional.

As long as it's a policy.law of the state yes, but as soon as it's not a Law and deemed legal every state in the Union will be forced to recognize same sex marriages....



The Full Faith and Credit Clause has also been invoked to recognize the validity of a marriage. Traditionally, every state honored a marriage legally contracted in any other state. However, in 1993, the Hawaii Supreme Court held that Hawaii's statute restricting legal marriage to parties of the opposite sex establishes a sex-based classification, which is subject to Strict Scrutiny if challenged on Equal Protection grounds (Baehr v. Lewin, 852 P.2d 44, 74 Haw. 530). Although the court did not recognize a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, it raised the possibility that a successful equal protection challenge to the state's marriage laws could eventually lead to state-sanctioned same-sex marriages. In response to the Baehr case, Congress in 1996 passed the Defense of Marriage Act (110 Stat. § 2419), which defines marriage as a union of a man and a woman for federal purposes and expressly grants states the right to refuse to recognize a same-sex marriage performed in another state.

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.



Sorry, you're wrong. It does apply.

Originally Posted by dabateman

Wrong all again. It's nice that you quote a legal dictionary. How special...

Bans on Interracial Unions Offer Perspective on Gay Ones - New York Times

Originally Posted by Xcali

And your point is?.. Because it's never been challenged you assume it doesn't apply... you're wrong, get over it.

Originally Posted by Xcali

Nice read, very informative.

http://www.nesl.edu/userfiles/file/l...l32/1/robb.htm


The Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws takes a somewhat different approach from the First Restatement. The Second Restatement asserts that "the validity of a marriage will be determined by the local law of the state which . . . has the most significant relationship to the spouses . . . ."Furthermore, under the Second Restatement, if a marriage satisfies the requirements of the state where the marriage was performed, it will be considered a valid marriage everywhere unless it conflicts with a "strong public policy" of the state "which had the most significant relationship to the spouses at the time of the marriage." But, the denial of recognition based on the public policy exception "runs afoul . . . of . . . the general policy of upholding a marriage whenever possible. As such, "the controlling issue becomes whether the policy of prohibition . . . is strong enough . . . to prevail over the policies furthered by upholding the marriage. When faced with this issue, most courts have validated the out-of-state marriage.

Originally Posted by dabateman

Which assumes my fundamental point that post DOMA, the states will assert their public policy exception, and then it will have to go through years of Court battles, and THEN there will be a "gay 'Loving'".

I don't know why this is so difficult.