"Respect for Marriage Act" would repeal DOMA

[Sinaijon]

@Bricker

Based on what, exactly? I know you’re not going to say “the Full Faith and Credit Clause,” because that would imply an ignorance of the rule enunciated in Pacific Employers Ins. Co. v. Industrial Accident Commission, 306 U. S. 493 (1939).

I was thinking more along the lines of Finstuen v Crutcher

[Kobal2]

@Bricker

Sweden, the Netherlands, Canada, Belgium, Spain, and Norway are “the rest of the industrialized world,” are they?

That will sure as hell be a surprise to Japan, China, Germany, France, the UK, Italy, Russia, and Brazil, won’t it?

In fact, of the top ten nations in the world by GDP, only Spain, at number 9, is on the list of countries that allow legal same-sex marriage.

There are very valid reasons to advocate for the US to permit same-sex marriage. “Catching up with the rest of the industrialized world,” is not a valid reason; it’s a spurious and ridiculous claim.

However most of them do have civil unions which, while not carrying the name marriage, offer the exact same perks. It’s not adequate, but it’s a far cry ahead of “God hates fags”.

[whorfin]

@Bricker

True. Although right now, the Dems have a cloture-proof majority in the Senate and a comfortable majority in the House. If it won’t pass, it’s hard for me to place all the blame on the evil Republicans.

Still, I grant that of the two parties, you’ll find more opponents to the bill amongst R’s than D’s, and that opposition is wrong-headed.

Just a nitpick–the dems don’t have a cloture-proof majority–since Kennedy’s seat is vacant.

They have 59 votes (counting lieberman, Sanders, Specter, and assuming Byrd is healthy enough to vote), and there are 99 sitting senators. 3/5 of 99 (the proportion needed for cloture) is 59.4–so 59 votes for cloture does not get you to 3/5 of the senate voting for cloture.

[Bricker]

@Kobal2

However most of them do have civil unions which, while not carrying the name marriage, offer the exact same perks. It’s not adequate, but it’s a far cry ahead of “God hates fags”.

Really? Most of them have civil unions?

The top ten (not in order):

Japan: No
China: No
Germany: Yes, since 2001
France: Yes, since 1999
UK: Yes, since 2005
Italy: No
Russia: No
Brazil: (sorta, no actual legal status but de facto recognition)
Spain: Yes (12 of 14 states)
USA: No (5 of 50 states)

At best, counting Brazil as a full yes, it’s exactly half.

[Miller]

@Polycarp

Not really a tricky position, IMO.

No, it’s not tricky. What’s difficult is telling if that’s the position Obama actually holds. To my knowledge, he’s not yet been in a position where this has been tested, so it’s not clear if his statements represent a principled understanding of the difference between personal morality and legislative injunction, or if it’s simply another example of the mealy-mouthed pandering that characterizes the standard Democratic approach to gay rights. I certainly hope it’s the former, but I’ve been burned by the “left” on this subject too many times to get my hopes up.

[whorfin]

@Polycarp

I find the difficulty in understanding this position itself difficult to understand. Consider: I think everyone should accept Jesus into their lives and become Anglican. But I’m dead set against trammelling with anyone’s beliefs by force of law.

Likewise, Barack and Michelle Obama personally hold the marriage is properly contracted between one man and one woman. But they don’t believe that how they feel should be imposed on other people by force of law.

It’s a distinction between freedom and statism. You have a right to do what you see fit, subject to its causing no harm to others. And how I might feel about the issue should not be the grounds for a law that infringes on your rights.

Not really a tricky position, IMO.

Further, the Respect for Marriage Act is a law that is consistent with Obama’s stated position. I agree with Miller that I want to see what he does when given the opportunity–but I can’t imagine him vetoing this. He may not push for it, but if the democratic congress approves it, and given that he doesn’t like intrusion, I think he’ll sign it.

The respect for marriage act doesn’t require any state to recognize same-sex marriage–but it gives federal benefits to all marriages that are defined to be legal by the state in which they are created.

And in my opinion, that’s right–the federal government has, for hundreds of years, used the state-law definitions of marriage–DOMA is the exception to the general rule, and is a law that’s imposing opinions on unwilling states by force of law. (isn’t big government and federal intervention in state lawmaking something conservatives are supposed to be against?)

[Bricker]

@Sinaijon

I was thinking more along the lines of Finstuen v Crutcher

From footnote 12:

Despite the fact that courts may use different words, such as “decree” or “order,” to refer to final adoption decisions, it is clear that all such decisions are
“judgments” under the common definition of the term as a “court’s final
determination of the rights and obligations of the parties in a case.

And from the opinion:

In applying the Full Faith and Credit Clause, the Supreme Court has drawn a distinction between statutes and judgments. Baker, 522 U.S. at 232-33.
Specifically, the Court has been clear that although the Full Faith and Credit
Clause applies unequivocally to the judgments of sister states, it applies with less force to their statutory laws.

A marriage is not a judgement. (Interestingly, a divorce is.)

Sorry. This case (which, even if it did stand for the proposition you endorse, is only controlling in one circuit) does not erase the FF&C public policy exception for same-sex marriages.

[villa]

Prior to Loving, does anyone know if states which banned interracial marriage recognized interracial marriages legally done in other states? I would think there might be some interesting precedent one way or the other on this.

[Polycarp]

@villa

Prior to Loving, does anyone know if states which banned interracial marriage recognized interracial marriages legally done in other states? I would think there might be some interesting precedent one way or the other on this.

Virginia at least did not — that was the precise circumstances in which the Lovings found themselves. Mr. Loving and Ms. Jeter went to Washington, d.C., where there was no anti-miscegenation law, and married, then returned to Virginia where they lived. Virginia not only did not recognize their marriage but arrested them and sentenced them to a year in prison, suspended for 25 years on condition they leave Virginia and not return. (Summary here)

[villa]

Of course. Did any states?

[Chronos]

Sorry. This case (which, even if it did stand for the proposition you endorse, is only controlling in one circuit) does not erase the FF&C public policy exception for same-sex marriages.

What public policy exception? I know that some activist judges claimed there was such an exception intended in the Constitution, but is it actually in the text anywhere?

For reference:

Article IV - The States

Section 1 - Each State to Honor all others

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.

[Revenant_Threshold]

I can’t help but think that at some point you’re going to run out of carefully-crafted, annoyingly noble sounding names for your laws.

[BrainGlutton]

@Revenant_Threshold

I can’t help but think that at some point you’re going to run out of carefully-crafted, annoyingly noble sounding names for your laws.

No one could believe that who has ever onced parsed the backronym-handle of the USA PATRIOT Act.

[Cisco]

@BrainGlutton

No one could believe that who has ever onced parsed the backronym-handle of the USA PATRIOT Act.

:gags:

:pukes:

[Bricker]

@Chronos

What public policy exception? I know that some activist judges claimed there was such an exception intended in the Constitution, but is it actually in the text anywhere?

For reference:

No, the public policy exception is judicially created, as you surmise.

[Polycarp]

@Chronos

What public policy exception? I know that some activist judges claimed there was such an exception intended in the Constitution, but is it actually in the text anywhere?

For reference:

I believe it’s a penumbra. Or perhaps an emanation.