Skip to main content

View Diary: Elena Kagan proves that DOMA's original intent was bigotry, not tradition (129 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Well that's depressing (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    viral, pico, alice kleeman, mmacdDE

    So if my address says South Carolina but my marriage license says Massachusetts I'm SOL but if I move to Massachusetts or another state that allows same-sex marriage, all his well.

    So this would also be the case of a couple who resided in Massachusetts and got married. Now time passes and a spouse's company transfers them to a state that doesn't allow same-sex marriage. If they move they lose all the benefits of marriage.

    I may be overthinking this but there are way too many complications for marriage not to be a universal right.

    •  Not quite so depressing (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      BlueSue, True North

      Once you are legally married, merely moving your residence should not change that fact or work an "involuntary divorce" of sorts.  The new state of residence gives "full faith and credit" to the former state's marriage law, even if you could not in the same circumstances marry in the new state.

      •  Not necessary. There's the public policy (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        BlueSue, pico, mmacdDE

        exception to the FFC clause.  It's not a done deal.  Take pre-Loving Virginia.  They arrested the Lovings and banned them from the state.  Moving from one to another won't automatically force them to recognize it.

        One should no more deplore homosexuality than left-handedness. ~Towards a Quaker View of Sex, 1964 (Proud left-handed queer here!) SSP: wmlawman

        by AUBoy2007 on Wed Mar 27, 2013 at 01:57:57 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  It won't UNLESS (0+ / 0-)

          The sc rules that states must abide by the full faith and credit clause of the constitution and recognize all LEGAL marriages, regardless of where they were performed.

          A straight couple can get married in canada, or Jamaica, or Mexico, or the Bahamas and there's no question that they're legally married. A gay couple that gets married in Canada, and they might as well not have bothered UNLESS they live in a state that recognizes it.

          That's crazy, and that's exactly the situation that was supposedly resolved by Loving.

          Which was, IMHO, the most appropriately named case ever decided by the court.

    •  No, if legally married in MA, SC *MUST* recognize (5+ / 0-)

      the marriage. You would certainly have a "Federal Case." Article 4 of the Constitution (not even one of those pesky Amendments) requires

      "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."
      If you are denied any benefits due to different-gendered couples, then you can (and should) sue. The state may prevent same-gendered couples from marrying IN the state, but they can't ignore the legal act of another state.
    •  on a related note (0+ / 0-)

      Apparently 19 states + DC allow first cousins to marry. I know this isn't a DOMA issue, but will the feds recognize that marriage if they move to one of the 31 other states?

      And then there's the whole minors getting married thing.

      These capitalists generally act harmoniously and in concert, to fleece the people... -Abraham Lincoln

      by HugoDog on Wed Mar 27, 2013 at 02:23:29 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (144)
  • Community (69)
  • Baltimore (64)
  • Bernie Sanders (49)
  • Freddie Gray (38)
  • Civil Rights (37)
  • Elections (26)
  • Hillary Clinton (26)
  • Racism (23)
  • Culture (22)
  • Labor (20)
  • Education (20)
  • Law (19)
  • Media (19)
  • Economy (18)
  • Rescued (17)
  • Science (15)
  • 2016 (15)
  • Politics (15)
  • Texas (13)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site