Maybe I’ll get some factual answers before this ends up in another forum.
If same sex marriage is not currently legal in North Carolina, what purpose does an amendment to the state constitution serve? The constiution could be amended again to allow it, and a change to the U.S. Constitution would make it invalid anyway.
I assumed that the move was regular old local politics, and undoing a state amendment would be more difficult than just passing a state law to legalize same sex marriage. But is there some other significant aspect to this?
It potentially keeps a state court from finding that SSM is required by the existing state constitution. An “equal protection” clause of some sort. Since this has happened in several states, it’s not a totally empty gesture.
Of course, making such a change doesn’t guarantee that SSM will remain illegal, even in the absence of a US Constitution change. California made a state constitutional amendment to that respect, but it’s still an ongoing court battle and could realistically go either way at this point.
It also makes it more difficult for a future state legislature to simply pass a law to legalize SSM; they’d have to go through the (presumably more difficult) process of re-amending the constitution first.
It also goes further than the current law, as it outlaws any “civil union” type arrangment, not just marriage.
“Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State. This section does not prohibit a private party from entering into contracts with another private party; nor does this section prohibit courts from adjudicating the rights of private parties pursuant to such contracts.”
I believe part of the point of such amendments to state constitutions is to ward off the use of the Full Faith and Credit clause of the US constitution from being used against them.
For instance, because of Full Faith & Credit if I get legally married (hetero marriage) in one state I am legally married in all other 49 states. No need for me to do anything extra…just happens and they all have to honor that marriage as legal in their state.
So what happens if one state allows SSM marriage and that couple moves to another state? Full Faith & Credit suggests the other state has to honor that. Such state constitution amendments are an attempt to thwart that.
Sooner or later the Supreme Court of the US will have to deal with all this. I am sure they are not eager to.
It can be framed that way by someone people, but it’s mostly about people thinking homosexuality is immoral and not wanting the state to sanction it and certianly not to grant same sex couples the same status as heterosexual couples.
Actually full faith and credit applies worldwide, if not legally than at least by an informal agreement. We went through this crap before in the USA, I can remember a court case involving a married couple from Britain immigrating to the US and being targeted by anti-miscegenation laws because the husband was mixed race.
Again? There are still people out there who absolutely SEETHE when they see a mixed-race couple. And it’s not like things were ever really different for LGBTs. We’re still, despite the current things like this amendment and DOMA still being the law, at the very tippy-top of the curve for LGB rights and acceptance over time(T, unfortunately, is trailing well behind). We have NEVER been LESS despised than we are now. Even with the legislative and legal and public relations challenges we’re facing right now, we are currently at the apex thus far of how our fellow Americans view us.
That’s kind of sobering, because we still have a VERY long hill to climb.
What is the term then for the general recognition of legal marriages worldwide? Obviously a married couple doesn’t have to get remarried in every state/country but I don’t know the term.
There isn’t a term, because it doesn’t exist. Look, there are lots of places that recognize polygamy, but you don’t get to immigrate to the US and become a citizen with your 6 wives. Same with SSM. You can get married to your gay lover in Canada, but you’re not married if you move to the US unless you move to state that recognizes SSM. An Afghani warlord doesn’t get to become a US citizen with his 10 year old bride, either.
There are certian “reciprical agreements” that countries might have, but marriage isn’t one of them in the US if your marriage is non-conforming to US standards.
The proper term for “I’ll recognize your ___ if you recognize mine” as between two governments (NOT limited to marriage; creating corporations, adoptions, and extradition are examples of the breadth of the concept) is comity.
W/R/T the OP, Skammer nailed the logic. What one General Assembly (state legislature) does, the next one may reverse. The state constitution is a bit harder to amend.
I think it would be considered unconstitutional. The U.S. Supreme Court legalizes individuals to have a homosexual relationship and not be prosecuted for it.
Example: Lawrence Vs. Texas
However, federal government does not legalize the right of homosexuls to marry through. This is what anti-gay politicians realize and are using this to pass or try to pass anti-gay laws.
The Supreme Court is already decided on this issue with Proposition 8 of California. Prop. 8 was voted as legal by state voters to ban gay marriage. However, it has been contested
I heard that Supreme Court is suppose to post their ruling about it sometime in June. I think that it would be one of the most significent rulings on the gay marriage issue than NC right now