CA/AZ/FL Gay Marriage Balloting Reaction Thread

[John_Mace]

@Chronos

Right-wing activist judges interpreted in a “public policy exception” back in the day to allow states to prohibit miscengenation (marriage between the races). And of course the current crop of right-wingers, who are absolutely opposed to activist judges, and are of course not racist, are all too happy to use that exception against gay marriage.

The wikipedia article on this seems at odds with your interpretation. Do you have a cite to back it up?

History prior to ratification of the Constitution

A similar clause existed in Article IV of the Articles of Confederation, the predecessor to the U.S. Constitution: “Full faith and credit shall be given in each of these States to the records, acts, and judicial proceedings of the courts and magistrates of every other State.”[5] A Pennsylvania court explained in 1786 that this provision in the Articles of Confederation did not direct that “executions might issue in one state upon the judgments given in another”, but rather was “chiefly intended to oblige each state to receive the records of another as full evidence of such acts and judicial proceedings.”[6]

At the Philadelphia Convention, James Madison said that he wanted to supplement that provision in the Articles of Confederation, in order to let Congress “provide for the execution of Judgments in other States, under such regulations as might be expedient.”[7] By 1787-09-01, negotiations at the Constitutional Convention had led to the following draft which included supplementary language as Madison had requested:

Full faith and credit ought to be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings, of every other state; and the legislature shall, by general laws, prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings, shall be proved, and the effect which judgments, obtained in one state, shall have in another.[8]

After several further modifications, the Full Faith and Credit Clause assumed the form in which it remains today. During the ratification process, James Madison remarked further on this subject, in Federalist #42. He wrote that the corresponding clause in the Articles of Confederation was “extremely indeterminate, and can be of little importance under any interpretation which it will bear.”[9] Of the expanded clause in the Constitution, Madison wrote that it established a power that “may be rendered a very convenient instrument of justice, and be particularly beneficial on the borders of contiguous States.”[9]

And doesn’t this clause give Congress the power to determine how that full faith and credit is executed, and didn’t Congress pass the DOMA?

[Whack-a-Mole]

@John_Mace

And doesn’t this clause give Congress the power to determine how that full faith and credit is executed, and didn’t Congress pass the DOMA?

Please define for me what “Proved” and “the Effect thereof” means in the FF&C. (I am really asking as I do not know and I think it is relevant)

It does not read to me as “ignore” or “undo” what another state does but then IANAL.

[John_Mace]

@Whack-a-Mole

Please define for me what “Proved” and “the Effect thereof” means in the FF&C. (I am really asking as I do not know and I think it is relevant)

It does not read to me as “ignore” or “undo” what another state does but then IANAL.

I really don’t know for sure. IANAL either, and maybe we need to get one in here. It just doesn’t look so cut and dried to me.

[Voyager]

@pepperlandgirl

If Prop 8 passes, it sets a pretty scary precedent, in my opinion. I doubt the LDS Church will be happy to stop meddling in state Constitutions if they’re victorious in CA. If the thought of Mormons covertly adding discriminatory amendments to your state constitution doesn’t scare you, I don’t know what will!

I’m hoping that a big Obama turnout will help kill it. The obnoxious pro-8 ads I’ve heard are sponsored by the Knights of Columbus, in case anyone wants to know who not to ever give money to.

[villa]

@John_Mace

And doesn’t this clause give Congress the power to determine how that full faith and credit is executed, and didn’t Congress pass the DOMA?

I’m not sure it does. “Proved” refers, I think, to what is evidence that such an act, record or proceeding exists. The second part is not applicable, because it only applies to the effect of judgments, and marriage is not a judgment (though some might say it is a sentence).

[villa]

@Voyager

I’m hoping that a big Obama turnout will help kill it. The obnoxious pro-8 ads I’ve heard are sponsored by the Knights of Columbus, in case anyone wants to know who not to ever give money to.

A big Obama turnout could be damaging. The anti-8 Democrats would have turned out anyway. Much of the new Obama turnout will come from traditionally more socially conservative groups, which might lead to a boost in the yes vote.

[Jello]

I just voted here in San Diego. Seeing the words “Eliminates the right” in shiny bold letters makes me think that anyone somehow still on the fence will vote No. So I’m hoping, anyway. I’ve seen a disturbing number of “YES on 8” signs about town.

[TWDuke]

@Voyager

I’m hoping that a big Obama turnout will help kill it.

Opponents of 8 worry that the opposite may be true.

Same-Sex Marriage Ban Is Tied to Obama Factor (Published 2008)

[Palo_Verde]

I’ve seen lots of pro-Prop 102 signs and fancy TV adds. I’ve also received several mailings supporting it. It haven’t seen any anti-Prop 102 adds, fliers, signs or TV adds.

[Dung_Beetle]

My husband is voting against me for President, but says I’ve convinced him to vote no on Amendment 2. A spit in the ocean, I’m sure.

[Voyager]

@villa

A big Obama turnout could be damaging. The anti-8 Democrats would have turned out anyway. Much of the new Obama turnout will come from traditionally more socially conservative groups, which might lead to a boost in the yes vote.

I can see that. On the other hand, judging from my kids, young people who are likely to vote for Obama have a lot less trouble with gay marriage.

[Gangster_Octopus]

As far as I am concerned the Mormon Church, which has been a major backer of Yes on 8 here in California, can go fuck themselves.

[Roderick_Femm]

@Gangster_Octopus

As far as I am concerned the Mormon Church, which has been a major backer of Yes on 8 here in California, can go fuck themselves.

As long as they do so heterosexually, as ordained by their holy books, I’m sure they wouldn’t have a problem with that.

I’m thinking some kind of boycott. I know Utah is not the same as the LDS church, but it is certainly their stronghold. Perhaps a travel boycott for winter sports this season might let them see the light. There must be equally good ski areas that aren’t so socially backwards (I don’t ski and I’ve only ever been to Utah once, so my contribution to such a boycott would be small, but still…). How’s about it, who’s with me?
Roddy

[Hostile_Dialect]

@Tristan

tend to forget the 1/3 of the population of the state that live in more conservative rural areas.

1. San Diego is rural? Actually, we have a larger population than San Francisco.

2. Little-known fact: as of this election, San Diego County now has more Democrats registered than Republicans. SDC is pretty much the defining Prop 8 battleground, and it could really go either way.

@iamthewalrus(:3=

It seems that we ought to amend the CA Constitution to require a 60% vote to amend the Constitution. Anyone think we could get an initiative like that passed?

That’s what I’ve been thinking. It’s just not right that a Constitution can be amended so easily, even in theory but especially in practice, where voters use it to deny fundamental freedoms.

@Miller

My non-lawyerly understanding is that “Full Faith and Credit” doesn’t compel states to recognize laws from other states if they don’t have them in their own. If two states have the same sort of licensing (say, to drive a car) then FF&C says that getting a lincense from one state is valid in another. But if Ohio suddenly up and bans automobiles, the fact that every other state is still handing out drivers licenses doesn’t mean Ohio is forced to accept them, too.

That cuts both ways. Every state has marriages, doesn’t it?

By the way, as I always do in these threads, I’d like to ask that we use the more technically accurate term “same-sex marriage” instead of “gay marriage”. No marriage, including opposite-sex marriage, requires both parties to be of any particular sexual orientation; witness the massive number of bisexuals already in marriages.

Another BTW: Have those of you in Southern California seen the new Dopefest thread?

[pepperlandgirl]

@Roderick_Femm

As long as they do so heterosexually, as ordained by their holy books, I’m sure they wouldn’t have a problem with that.

I’m thinking some kind of boycott. I know Utah is not the same as the LDS church, but it is certainly their stronghold. Perhaps a travel boycott for winter sports this season might let them see the light. There must be equally good ski areas that aren’t so socially backwards (I don’t ski and I’ve only ever been to Utah once, so my contribution to such a boycott would be small, but still…). How’s about it, who’s with me?
Roddy

With respect, I hope people don’t support a boycott of Utah. Most of the winter sports happen in Park City and Salt Lake City. Though the LDS Church is in SLC–I can see the headquarters from where I sit in my apartment–there are a whole lot of non-Mormons and “Jack Mormons” who live in this tiny island of blue and rely on the tourist industry in the winter. I bet Obama is going to get 1/3 of the electorate in Utah–those are the people who would suffer from a boycott.

Though I agree that the Mormon church can go fuck itself. I may have parted ways with the church, but I was never ashamed of them, or to be associated with them through location, history, or family. But I am now.

[Miller]

@Hostile_Dialect

That cuts both ways. Every state has marriages, doesn’t it?

Sure, but the point (again, as I understand it) is that one state can’t force another state to adopt a law or regulation through Full Faith and Credit. It just applies to laws and regulations that two states already recognize. If one state says that, by law, a marriage can’t consist of X, and another state says that they can consist of X, the first state doesn’t have to allow X because the second state does. But if both states allow for X, then a marriage in one state is valid in the other.

[villa]

@pepperlandgirl

With respect, I hope people don’t support a boycott of Utah. Most of the winter sports happen in Park City and Salt Lake City. Though the LDS Church is in SLC–I can see the headquarters from where I sit in my apartment–there are a whole lot of non-Mormons and “Jack Mormons” who live in this tiny island of blue and rely on the tourist industry in the winter. I bet Obama is going to get 1/3 of the electorate in Utah–those are the people who would suffer from a boycott.

Though I agree that the Mormon church can go fuck itself. I may have parted ways with the church, but I was never ashamed of them, or to be associated with them through location, history, or family. But I am now.

The people to boycott, as I suggested in another thread, are the companies that financially supported the yes campaign. If anyone can point me to a donor list, I’ll start writing letters tomorrow.

[silenus]

@Miller

Sure, but the point (again, as I understand it) is that one state can’t force another state to adopt a law or regulation through Full Faith and Credit. It just applies to laws and regulations that two states already recognize. If one state says that, by law, a marriage can’t consist of X, and another state says that they can consist of X, the first state doesn’t have to allow X because the second state does. But if both states allow for X, then a marriage in one state is valid in the other.

The first case that dealt with this issue was, IIRC, Williams v North Carolina (1945), which dealt with “quickie” divorces. The issue was that to establish a bona fide residence in a state, one must intend to reside there permenantly, or at least indefinitely. Skipping over the state line to get a divorce didn’t meet this requirement, so states were free to ignore a divorce granted in another state under certain circumstances.

But I think that is as far as the precedent goes. My Nevada marriage was recognized by California, even though we were only in Vegas for a weekend. So it seems to me that FF&C applies to marriages.

Waiting for a lawyer to explain where I am horribly wrong.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Miller

Sure, but the point (again, as I understand it) is that one state can’t force another state to adopt a law or regulation through Full Faith and Credit. It just applies to laws and regulations that two states already recognize. If one state says that, by law, a marriage can’t consist of X, and another state says that they can consist of X, the first state doesn’t have to allow X because the second state does. But if both states allow for X, then a marriage in one state is valid in the other.

But they BOTH recognize marriage and may just differ in the details. If they ban marriage completely then maybe you’ve got something.

For instance (hypothetical) say Illinois passes a law requiring drivers over the age of 75 to pass extra driving exams. Statistics have shown they are a more dangerous class of driver than younger drivers. Now say Indiana does not have such restrictions. Illinois now starts arresting anyone over 75 driving in our state from Indiana because they do not meet Illinois driver requirements.

Is that allowable?

[pepperlandgirl]

@villa

The people to boycott, as I suggested in another thread, are the companies that financially supported the yes campaign. If anyone can point me to a donor list, I’ll start writing letters tomorrow.

Here is a list of donors from Utah which includes private citizens and companies. And this is the one of CA donors.