According to Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution, under Full Faith and Credit, each state must recognize the validity of the laws, public records, and court decisions of every other state.
This includes a broad category, including marriage licenses. Some states, such as Massachusetts, allows gay marriage.
Now, if a homosexual couple weds in Massachusetts, for example, under the Full Faith and Credit policy, other states must recognize the validity of the marriage if the couple moves to any other state.
Taking the Constitution into account and not your own personal beliefs, don't you agree?
2006-10-05 07:42:39 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
You know, if more gay people got married...the adoption agencies would have an easier time finding foster parents.
2006-10-05 07:51:49 · update #1
Terry, when did the U.S. government decide to follow every teaching of Christianity? Many people are Christians, but many are not, and Christianity is not the national religion. If it was, that would violate freedom of religion. So your Christian point of view is not at all valid in this arguement.
2006-10-05 08:08:19 · update #2
Misspipik, you are misinformed. I said every state must recognize the validity of the laws in place of other states and allow the same special rights people had in one state, in another. I DID NOT SAY that states had to adopt each other's laws. Please read things more carefully before you respond. Thank you.
2006-10-05 08:14:32 · update #3
Agreed because it's an issue of legally binding documents that are accepted worldwide. To argue otherwise in terms of the legal documents sets up a court challenge for discrimination in itself, nevermind the larger issue at stake.
But that supposition is immediately countered by the individual laws of each state/country, which nearly all identify a legally valid marriage being between one man and one woman only.
It's an ugly quagmire, because how do you get the legal recognition of a gay marriage license in non-gay marriage states without the state changing the laws to read two people instead of man and wife, therefore further instigating the changes in that state to allow gay marriage?
Intriguing.
2006-10-05 07:58:24 · answer #1 · answered by fancybrowneyes 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
That is exactly the reason why Bush is supporting a federal Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. That is also the reason why, if challenged, the United States Supreme Court should declare state laws banning gay marriage unconstitutional and there is this little case called Loving v. Virginia which further supports the rights of individual States to allow gay marriage and the necessity, under Full Faith & Credits, of other states recognizing them.
2006-10-05 10:03:24 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
What a great question. During the last push for the discriminatory amendment - which of course had NO chance of passing - I saw Pat Buchanan be honest for once on Hardball. What he said was that it was imperative that this amendment be passed because it would prevent the issue from ending up in the Supreme Court because of the Full Faith and Credit Article. He actually acknowledged that once the USSC takes this on his group of anti-same sex marriage zealots were doomed. He admitted being fully aware that they would have to rule per the Constitution and not their Bibles. I don't like the man much, but I did respect him for saying what others would not.
The USSC has been avoiding this issue like the plague, but they won't be able to for much longer. Not only because of Full Faith and Credit, but also because of lawsuits originating from the states that have passed laws against same-sex marriage. The basis for those? That civil rights cannot be voted on in a general election. The first state court that acknowledges the fight for marriage is a civil issue will propel these lawsuits forward - some think it will be California.
2006-10-05 07:54:25 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
No the definition of marriage clearly states that it is strictly between a MAN and a WOMAN. To say that a MAN and a MAN are married or vice versa undermines the title of marriage. Though I do agree that it is unconstitutional to deny homosexuals the right to do so I just feel that to benefit both sides it should not be held under the title of marriage.
2006-10-05 07:50:14 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
I agree based on the constitution.
And I agree based on my personal beliefs.
I think legally, however, some of the States have passed laws to circumvent that. There might actually be Federal legislation passed to avoid that.
It's still a long fight to win basic human rights and acceptance for the gay community.
2006-10-05 07:46:00 · answer #5 · answered by a_blue_grey_mist 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
what article or amendment to the constitution permits or recognizes gay marriage. in every other state it is illegal for same sex people to marry. Massachusetts, under your reasoning must follow the law of every other state and not permit same sex marriage. same article, same section: so it is a poor reason. is the following a good reason? it is good for the economy. sell more flowers, rent more banquet halls. hire more divorce attorneys;
2006-10-05 08:00:21 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
I'm gay, but I do agree with you. I don't beleive in people of the same sex getting married. I have a partner and that's how it should stay. Being gay is not easy and getting married to my boyfreind will make it no easier.
2006-10-05 07:53:40 · answer #7 · answered by ? 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Miss. Banned GAY- Marriages. Any body comes to this state want be reconised as married. it want be leagel .That is the way a lot of states feel and it should be that way every were. It is WRONG for the same sex people to sleep with each other muchless marry. How sick can the be?.
2006-10-05 08:05:49 · answer #8 · answered by mswildman2005 2 · 1⤊ 3⤋
Well the way you are looking at it yes but that is only because you are saying that gay marriages should be allowed in the first place. this country was started as a christian nation and that is why it is as good as it is.
2006-10-05 07:49:36 · answer #9 · answered by the#1manwiththeplan 2 · 1⤊ 3⤋
NO it should not. In the Old Testament God told the Israelites
that "if a man lie down with a man like a woman and vice versa,
ye shall surely be put to death"
2006-10-05 07:54:02 · answer #10 · answered by terry l 3 · 1⤊ 3⤋