Well that's not difficult. Assets in Mass are under Mass law. The deed would pass between individuals under Mass. law as the property is located there. This means that the asset would pass to Steve as a spouse. If Steve were to make a gain on the transfer under Mass. law, (he wouldn't, he's the spouse), he would be liable for taxes. The feds would tax him based upon Mass. law. Inheritance of all property not located within the state of marriage would be handled by the state of residency. So the assets in Mass would be protected as marital assets under Mass law and the assets in LA would not.

__________________

And you don't see a hole in that wide enough to drive a mac truck through? Especially if Rick's family decides to contest the inheritance? And what about liquid assets such as bank accounts? LA now has a clear claim to them, as does Rick's family. So does Steve because he can call on Mass law to protect it, being that he has a residence there.

And does the marriage follow the physical property or does it follow the person in the contract?

In this situation I see nothing but legal complications and conflicts that will eventually force the federal government to standardize the marriage contract.

It's not really as difficult as you make it. Assets in Mass. are protected under Mass. law. Those that are not in Mass. are not. Bank accounts? Where are they based out of? LA? Then LA law applies and the likely result is that the family has the right to it. Unless otherwise specified by a will. Getting married doesn't end the necessity of a will.

They are still legally married in Mass. Any property in Mass. becomes the spouses under marriage protections. They aren't in LA. That means that the court must defer to the will for all LA assets.

EDIT: Mass law does not apply in LA, nor does LA law apply in Mass. Assets in each state are treated as they should be under that states law.

__________________

I am not making it difficult. I am being realistic about the legal questions that would be raised. You know any litigious lawyer worth his salt could make a case...I'm just pointing out the obvious holes in the fortress.

So...the marriage follows the assets and not the people. If that's the case, moving out of the state could be seen as an abdication of the marriage contract by the feds if it were ever placed in front of them in court. You know full well that is an argument that could be made.

[/quote]

You care to discuss parental rights and whom the tax breaks follow once Rick and Steve leave Mass? Do you see the mountains of complications forming if the feds don't step in over this issue and standardize the laws at a national level? Of course, with that happening, we come back to the states' rights issue.

It really is an interesting and complex legal conundrum when you consider the 6th Amendment in all this.

Well, until I finish my law degree I won't make the legal arguments on such a case, but it can be set up. We choose not to do it. Parental rights are protected under the faith and full credit clause. So if a person was the legal parent (adoption and such) then that status transfers as it does now.

But these holes in the fortress that you claim simply aren't there. Sure they can be argued but if a person were to actually use the law as a foundation they wouldn't have a choice but to adhere to the rights.

You make the claim that by leaving the state they are abandoning the contract. This isn't true with current contracts so I don't see how that claim can stand in court. I have a contract in Mass. That contract still binds me under Mass. law regardless if I leave Mass. or not.

__________________

But will LA enforce the contract if they have a law specifically prohibiting such a contract? Further complication of the matter comes with the unfortunate circumstance of divorce. How does the marriage dissolve in LA when the marriage never existed there in the first place? Suppose Rick moves back to Mass where he may be awarded alimony and/or child support? How is such a thing enforced if Steve is in LA where the law makes no provision for such a thing to occur?

It's my opinion that the only way the matter can be resolved against the 6th amendment and the individual state laws is if the federal government is proactive in defining marriage for the first time in American history.

With the child custody issue...supposing Rick is awarded custody by the Mass state courts in divorce proceedings and Steve wishes to contest and takes his case to the federal level. Remember, the federal government has already set a precedent of involvement by taxing the couple as married. What is the legal ramification?

I am just saying it is a lot more complex than most people are willing to consider. It really is a redefinition and restructuring of the entire establishment.