Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (71876)	8/6/2003 4:00:29 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

I am not sure it could override the "full faith and credit" section of the Constitution.

To: Lane3 who wrote (71876)	8/6/2003 4:19:20 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 82486

Neo answered it. But I'll expand on that answer. In light of the recent court decision on sodomy laws combined with the "full faith and credit clause" in the constitution, it looks as if a state allows homosexual marriage that all states would be required to accept those marriages effectively making one states decision the decision for everyone. If the Defense of Marriage Act is upheld when challenged after some state allows homosexual marriage then the amendment might not be needed, if it falls in the face of a challenge the amendment might pass. Absent the law being overturned I don't think the amendment will happen. Tim

To: Lane3 who wrote (71876)	8/6/2003 4:37:15 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Don't know why this isn't enough. What it fails to do is prevent any state Supreme Court from ruling that their state constitution requires that that state allow same sex couples to marry. That raises many issues. a. for those states and their programs, the marriage would be legal, even though it wouldn't be for federal programs. b. What about, for example, state medicare or other programs where the states set the elibigility rules but get lots of federal money? c. Would the Defense of Marriage act hold up to a constitutional challenge under the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Costitution? That would go to the SC, and who knows how they would rule. A constitutional amendment would supercede FF&C in that area in ways the DOMA might or might not do, nobody knows. d. It's going to be a real mess out there (here) if, say, four states allow same sex married couples and other states do as Washington has and deny that. Suppose a couple married and living in a "yes" state have a child. The other parent is automatically a parent of the child, and can't adopt under standard marriage laws. Say they then move to a "no" state and try to divorce. What will the "no" state do? They can't divorce them because they don't recognize the marriage. The child won't have been legally adopted by the other party, so will they have to start an adoption proceeding then? It'll be a mess and three quarters. The Defense of Marriage Act doesn't resolve the problems. Take my word for it. Or don't. Just think it through and you'll see that it becomes a full employment for family law lawyers act.