tazzygirl
Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007 Status: offline
|
quote:
Which is, of course, unconstitutional, as it violates the Full Faith and Credit clause. What part did you not understand? The Full Faith and Credit Clause According to Andrew Koppelman, a law professor at Northwestern University and the author of The Gay Rights Question in Contemporary American Law, "No state has ever been required by the full faith and credit clause to recognize any marriage they didn't want to."[17] This issue first arose with regard to interracial marriage. Until the Supreme Court struck down all laws banning interracial marriage in 1967, a number of states banned interracial marriage and did not accept interracial marriage licenses issued in other states.[17] Thus, states were required to recognize an interracial marriage under the Equal Protection Clause and not under the Full Faith and Credit Clause. The Supreme Court has not ruled on how or whether these laws are affected by the Full Faith and Credit Clause. Until the SC rules, which is what everyone is pushing for because those who are in favor believe as you do, and those who are against are banking the Court is now conservative enough to agree with them. There is a huge push for less government. This would fall under the "less government" and, supposedly, something the state itself should handle. How does it feel to finally understand how state governments would act tyrannically against the best interests of the people if allowed to their own devices?
_____________________________
Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt. RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11 Duchess of Dissent 1 Dont judge me because I sin differently than you. If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.
|