# Any legal point to NC banning gay marriage? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [May 4, 2012, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-legal-point-to-nc-banning-gay-marriage/620913 "2012-05-04T19:31:08Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2012, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-legal-point-to-nc-banning-gay-marriage/620913/1 "2012-05-04T19:31:08Z")
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? ---
**Author:** ![iamthewalrus\_3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/258eb7/32.png) [@iamthewalrus\_3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamthewalrus_3)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2012, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-legal-point-to-nc-banning-gay-marriage/620913/2 "2012-05-04T19:47:23Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![KneadToKnow](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kneadtoknow/32/3999_2.png) [@KneadToKnow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KneadToKnow)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2012, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-legal-point-to-nc-banning-gay-marriage/620913/3 "2012-05-04T20:32:14Z")
My understanding is as **iamthewalrus(:3=** has it. The idea is to prevent “this restriction is unconstitutional” arguments by making it constitutional. ---
**Author:** ![Skammer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skammer/32/143_2.png) [@Skammer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skammer)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2012, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-legal-point-to-nc-banning-gay-marriage/620913/4 "2012-05-04T20:38:33Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2012, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-legal-point-to-nc-banning-gay-marriage/620913/5 "2012-05-04T21:08:49Z")
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.” ---
**Author:** ![Jake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f475e1/32.png) [@Jake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jake)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2012, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-legal-point-to-nc-banning-gay-marriage/620913/6 "2012-05-04T21:18:43Z")
Is it a tax issue? SSM couples will get the benefits of opposite marriage couples, but does it make that much difference in Govt. income? ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2012, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-legal-point-to-nc-banning-gay-marriage/620913/7 "2012-05-04T21:25:17Z")
> [@KneadToKnow](#): > > My understanding is as **iamthewalrus(:3=** has it. The idea is to prevent “this restriction is unconstitutional” arguments by making it constitutional. It goes further than that I think. 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. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2012, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-legal-point-to-nc-banning-gay-marriage/620913/8 "2012-05-04T21:59:56Z")
> [@Jake](#): > > Is it a tax issue? SSM couples will get the benefits of opposite marriage couples, but does it make that much difference in Govt. income? 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. ---
**Author:** ![grude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47774/32.png) [@grude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/grude)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2012, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-legal-point-to-nc-banning-gay-marriage/620913/9 "2012-05-04T22:04:27Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > It goes further than that I think. > > 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. 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. God here we go again! ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2012, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-legal-point-to-nc-banning-gay-marriage/620913/10 "2012-05-04T22:59:43Z")
> [@grude](#): > > 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. > > God here we go again! 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. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2012, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-legal-point-to-nc-banning-gay-marriage/620913/11 "2012-05-04T23:03:23Z")
> [@grude](#): > > Actually full faith and credit applies worldwide, if not legally than at least by an informal agreement. No, it doesn’t. Besides, FFaC is a specific legal term. It makes no sense to use it in an informal sense. ---
**Author:** ![grude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47774/32.png) [@grude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/grude)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2012, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-legal-point-to-nc-banning-gay-marriage/620913/12 "2012-05-04T23:17:10Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > No, it doesn’t. Besides, FFaC is a specific legal term. It makes no sense to use it in an informal sense. 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. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2012, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-legal-point-to-nc-banning-gay-marriage/620913/13 "2012-05-04T23:24:15Z")
> [@grude](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![suranyi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e36b37/32.png) [@suranyi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/suranyi)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2012, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-legal-point-to-nc-banning-gay-marriage/620913/14 "2012-05-04T23:38:39Z")
> [@grude](#): > > 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. Right, I mean, my parents were married in Austria and their marriage is recognized in all states. It’s not quite FFaC but it’s something similar. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2012, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-legal-point-to-nc-banning-gay-marriage/620913/15 "2012-05-05T00:12:59Z")
> [@grude](#): > > 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. 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. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2012, 2:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-legal-point-to-nc-banning-gay-marriage/620913/16 "2012-05-05T02:54:33Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > 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. DOMA explicitly says that a state doesn’t have to recognize a gay marriage entered into in another state. Full Faith and Credit doesn’t apply here. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2012, 3:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-legal-point-to-nc-banning-gay-marriage/620913/17 "2012-05-05T03:45:14Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > DOMA explicitly says that a state doesn’t have to recognize a gay marriage entered into in another state. Full Faith and Credit doesn’t apply here. All well and fine but doesn’t the Supreme Court need to say that? Or put another way, since when can congress pass a law that says you can ignore a part of the constitution? ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2012, 3:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-legal-point-to-nc-banning-gay-marriage/620913/18 "2012-05-05T03:51:25Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Or put another way, since when can congress pass a law that says you can ignore a part of the constitution? Missed edit window: I suppose congress can pass anything it wants. My point is this is ultimately a question for the Supreme Court. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2012, 4:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-legal-point-to-nc-banning-gay-marriage/620913/19 "2012-05-05T04:10:37Z")
Ok, thanks guys. Sounds like it is what it sounded like. DOMA being untested in the Supreme Court is interesting. ---
**Author:** ![WisdomofLife](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/34f0e0/32.png) [@WisdomofLife](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WisdomofLife)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2012, 6:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-legal-point-to-nc-banning-gay-marriage/620913/20 "2012-05-05T06:03:00Z")
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 > **[Lawrence v. Texas](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas)** > > 2. Whether the petitioners' criminal convictions for adult consensual sexual intimacy in their home violate their vital interests in liberty and privacy protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; > Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), is a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that most\[a\] sanctions of criminal punishment for consensual, adult non-procreative sexual activity (commonly referred to as sodomy laws) are unconstitutional. The Cour... 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 [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46294255/ns/us\_news-life/t/court-calif-ban-gay-marriage-unconstitutional/](http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46294255/ns/us_news-life/t/court-calif-ban-gay-marriage-unconstitutional/) 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 [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-legal-point-to-nc-banning-gay-marriage/620913.md?page=2)