Why would another state have any reason to recognize a brothel license? They don’t recognize other professional licenses either.
Unless the owner of the gun is a police officer, even a retired police officer.
The FF&C clause reads:
Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.
Given the flatly declaratory wording of the first sentence, it’s hard for me to see how the second sentence can be read to say, “Congress may provide that particular kinds of marriages in some states may be ignored in others.” ISTM the second sentence is about how “public acts, records, and judicial proceedings” shall be proved, as an evidentiary matter, not that they may be disregarded entirely.
FFC has never been interpreted to require states to recognize each other’s marriages. Historically, FFC has applied only to civil judgments from a state court. Trying to mandate nationwide SSM through that provision would be unduly difficult because it would require the Court to adopt an entirely new doctrine.
If the Court does reach that result, it is much more likely to do so via equal protection.
That is federal law, passed oh, about 10 years ago, and “specifically” pre-empts any state/local law forbidding it.
There is a federal law against polygamy, way back yonder.
Note the part I bolded. That should answer your question.
It doesn’t, but I will accept that mine is a minority view.
If a state were to legalise polygamy, could the same argument that struck down DOMA s3 not also be used to strike down the federal anti-polygamy law?
They don’t and shouldn’t. But under the expansive reading put forth by **Elendil’s Heir **it is a “public…recording” of an “other state” and Alabama should honor my license to operate a brothel issued by Nevada.
Further, in a few months my law license will be affirmed by the state supreme court (actually rubber stamped en masse from approval by the character and fitness commission, but a judicial act nonetheless). Under an expansive reading, why shouldn’t every state have to recognize my law license?
I would think so. It fits the Kennedy test:
- Who can get married is a state function.
- When a state has granted such a status, the 5th amendment requires the feds to recognize it.
- animus or hatred of a polygamous marriage or lifestyle or orientation is not enough to pass a law.
Some may use the familiar argument that polygamy is different because we have property questions about divorce and if one spouse wants a divorce do the others remain married, etc. But those difficulties wouldn’t apply to the feds. They would simply use the state law about these things to determine who is and is not married.
I’ll have to correct myself after checking, there is a federal law against Bigamy, not Polygamy by name, same legal element though, more than 1 wife.
I suppose a state could legalize it, the same as MJ laws, even though there is a federal law still active on MJ, but then we do not have a FFC/=Protection claim, as there is no way the US SC will strike down it’s bigamy law.
Or possibly the 14th amendment privileges or immunities “right to travel” provision. I forget the case name, but it was one in which a law held that if a person moved from one state to another, he only got the level of welfare benefits in his previous state for a certain period of time. The Court struck that down.
If a SSM couple from New York moves to Virginia, I see the same analogy there.
Do you believe that the laws not allowing polygamy were instituted for little other reason than hatred of polygamists? One of the big problems with DOMA was that it was blatantly obvious that it was enacted with, and supported by, animus for homosexuals. It was pretty clear it was an attempt, not to set a rationale for a public policy, but to make sure dem gays don’t be getting any big idears about equal marriage rights. I’m not so sure that same kind of animus is behind the polygamy laws.
Laws against polygamy are morality laws that are there because the public does not believe that plural marriage is a “normal” marriage worthy of legal respect. It’s exactly the same reason for a ban on SSM.
If one wants to speculate as to whether the public hates the underlying gay person or the underlying person who wishes to enter into plural marriage (and some proponents probably do and others don’t), the rationale behind both bans, at least in my mind, is exactly the same: it’s a morals law design to preserve society’s longstanding definition of marriage. Whether that is good enough in today’s time will be decided by the court. But no, I don’t see a differing rationale between the bans.
And the gun movement is always pushing for it to be expanded to everyone.
If FF&C is enough to force states to stop enforcing laws against people bringing instruments of death into the state, then it’s enough to force states to stop enforcing laws against bringing marriage licenses into the state. Plenty of states had their public policy against deadly weapons overturned by Congress on the grounds that travel with a gun should be easier for certain people, but marriage licenses are just so dangerous that Congress has to respect public policy on them? Please.
[QUOTE=jtgain;1h6426850]
Laws against polygamy are morality laws that are there because the public does not believe that plural marriage is a “normal” marriage worthy of legal respect. It’s exactly the same reason for a ban on SSM.
[/quote]
I don’t think your perception of animosity to polygamists is anywhere near the demonstrated animosity of the right wing toward homosexuals that led to the enactment of DOMA. The mere fact that there is a moral basis for legislation does next to nothing to prove animosity or the lack thereof. I don’t recall a huge backlash in the last few years against polygamists that sought marriage equality leading to the enactment of DOMA. Maybe I wasn’t paying enough attention to the widespread legislation enacted the last few years specifically to harm polygamists.
Don’t get me wrong, though. I don’t doubt the right wing’s ability to whip up hatred and legislation against polygamists once they lose their current battle against homosexuals. It’s just that we’re nowhere near there now.
The good folks who crafted DOMA were careful to state that marriage was the union of 1 man and 1 woman, so it was the same process. I don’t know a whole lot about the history of anti-polygamy laws in the US, but weren’t they tied in large in part to a backlash against Mormons? I don’t think it would be hard to build a case for “hate” being a key motivator.
You think the high potential for tax and welfare fraud with polygamy doesn’t play into it as well? I won’t get into why laws were passed against it, but today these are practical concerns, and even without legal marriage many FLDS types can exploit welfare.
The liar, Obama, turned his back on DOMA for money. No surprise.