Plus they hate white Anglo-Saxon protestant values.
Indeed. No one wanted those sneaky gays to get around the anti-SSM marriage laws by setting up some sort of parallel system called “civil unions”. My God, the very thought of it!!
Because that’s not what it means, for the same reason that states aren’t required to recognize each others’ gun laws (or drivers’ licenses, though in this case they very much do so anyway).
All FFC means is that each state has to recognize other states’ decisions as being valid and binding within those other states. So if for some reason a case in Illinois hinges on whether or not someone had a valid Indiana CCW permit, it’s not for the Illinois court to decide whether or not that CCW permit was valid in Indiana. That doesn’t mean they have to recognize the privileges it confers by Indiana law, in Illinois–but they do have to recognize that yes, it is in fact a valid Indiana CCW permit.
Fortunately, it doesn’t matter here. Banning SSM is a wholesale violation of equal protection and religious liberty.
I agree with this, but a similar argument applies to the spread of legalization of same sex marriage.
There wasn’t even a token effort at a facade of lip-service to separate-but-equal. That takes determination.
That’s going to take extensive research. One has to (1) google "1890 Manifesto (note that capitalization is not required for google results and (2) click on the wiki article.
Ironically, it took longer to explain to you how to use google that it actually took to do the research.
Good point, except that the Mormons were continuing to illegally perform polygamous marriages in the US after the 1890 Manifesto, that a number of the Twelve Apostles took polygamous wives and the Mormons where required to swear an oath of vengeance against the government of the United States.
I love when institutionalized bigotry, as is the case of the Mormon church and gays, gets smacked down.
That is not my understanding of the law. The part of the constitution concerned states:
“Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.” Article IV, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution.
As marriage is a public Act, record and judicial proceeding, surely it must be covered by the simple wording.
Now this has been supposedly overturned by the DOMA, but can an Act overturn the Constitution- no.
If SCOTUS was apolitical it would find that in the same manner in which the states accept each other’s driving licences, and court judgements, they should accept SSM; as this is a hot potato issue, it is likely to avoid doing what is obvious and rational. As times change and most states have SSM and as times change and some more liberal justices are appointed, then Fair Faith and Credit might well be applied to SSM.
The ruling is interesting, although I’m only partway through.
A summary on ThinkProgressive.Org
As well as several other claims. As a decidedly non-professional, I can’t comment on exactly how well the argument holds up, but the progressive in me was cheering the reasoning. I do presume that this was the best case that the anti-SSM people could manage, and it got shot down pretty badly.
I’ve never understood how allowing gay marriage could hurt heterosexual marriage. We seem to be doing that well enough on our own, as I (twice married) point out to my extremely conservative brother-in-law (third marriage for him, second for my sister) when compared to my gay sister (first long-term, live-together relationship for her (25 years! now) to her once divorced partner).
I believe that opponents are relying on the unstated view that historically homosexuality was a seen as sin or icky, but that doesn’t fly constitutionally. As Judge Shelby repeatedly points out, we know a lot more about homosexuality than was known before.
It will be interesting to see how the appeals go.
The thing is, the Constitution says right after that:
“And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.”
which has been, in the case of DOMA, read so as to say that Congress has the right to do it.
Heck, regarding the ability to reproduce, doesn’t Utah still have that law for some hetero couples where they can’t marry unless they can show they can’t reproduce?
Fuck those clowns.
ETA: Arizona, Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin have similar laws. They’re all about cousin marriage.
Well, there’s two problems. First, it’s not at all clear that marriage is a “public Act, Record, [or] judicial Proceeding.” It’s not a public Act (i.e., law) and it’s not a judicial proceeding. So the question is whether or not it is a public record. I don’t know of any case that defines it, but I don’t think it means “public record” in the sense that we use it for something like FOIA. There’s a theory that the “record” reference means that an out-of-state public record is admissible in a court proceeding on the same terms as an in-state record.
But that doesn’t really matter, because courts have read a “public policy” exception into the FFC for things other than judgments (this was litigated in the context of out-of-state divorces, which are judicial proceedings). A state does not have to respect another state’s laws that offend its public policy, which is generally the theory used by states to decline to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.
The second problem is that the Constitution itself, in the very next sentence, gives Congress the ability to “prescribe . . . the effect” of the sister state acts, records, and judgments. So that it seems like Congress probably does have the power to provide that states don’t have to recognize each other’s marriages (I don’t know what happens if Congress provides that they do have to recognize it and its runs into the “public policy” exception. That would be an interesting issue).
So, it’s definitely not a “surely it must be covered” and I’d even go so far as to say that an apolitical court would not conclude as you do.
Well, TB, your pissy “answer” trotted out stuff I already knew and, guess what, didn’t answer my actual question.
Well, I’m from Alabama but I wouldn’t really call myself “well-placed”. 
If you’re looking for the date on which same sex marriage will become legal in all U.S. states, I would pick June 24, 2015, give or take a week or so.
The U.S. Supreme Court sits in terms that begin on the first Monday in October, and almost always end (except for emergency measures and the like) around the last week in June. The most controversial decisions usually don’t get finalized until the end of the term. For instance, the Windsor and Hollingsworth decisions on same sex marriage were issued on June 26, 2013, the last day of the October 2012 term.
Because none of the post-Windsor cases have been decided, or even argued, at the Circuit Court level, it is unlikely that the Supreme Court will accept a same sex marriage case to be argued in the current (October 2013) term. On the other hand, there will probably several Circuit Court decisions issued in time for the Supreme Court to take up the matter to be argued in the October 2014 term, and if different Circuits come to different conclusions, the Supreme Court will almost certainly have to take up the issue. If the case is argued in the October 2014 term, chances are that the decision will be issued in the last week of June, 2015.
Assuming that Justice Scalia is correct that Justice Kennedy’s Windsor decision presages that same sex marriage will be found to be a constitutional right, the date that same sex marriage will become legal across the U.S. would most likely be within a week or so of June 24, 2015.
And now the SCOTUS has put a stay on the lower court’s decision. What a mess, since many weddings have already been performed. Well, here we go again!
Perhaps it shouldn’t, but it does. Federal judges often come from the are where there district or circuit is, and the U.S. Senators from that area have alot of influence on who is nominated. So federal courts tend to follow local political cultures.
But states must recognize the HETEROSEXUAL marriages of other states, don’t they? If so, this is settled.
Not quite. The AG’s ruling (by then-AG and now-outgoing-Gov. Bob McDonnell, a Republican with a pretty religious-right background) said that contract rights existing before the amendment passed weren’t affected. In other words, according to McDonnell, the anti-gay heteros could have their cake and eat it too. The amendment only applied to gays and not unmarried straight couples using similar contractual means. So the AG was basically affirming that the amendment was meant specifically to target gay marriage, while letting heterosexual fornicators living in sin (to use the term a right-winger might favor) continue to enjoy the protection of the law without marrying.
http://www.oag.state.va.us/Opinions%20and%20Legal%20Resources/Opinions/2006opns/06-003Newmanetal.pdf
No, they don’t have to. They choose to. As far as I know, states recognize all marriages that were valid in the forming state except that some do not recognize cousin marriage and some (most?) do not recognize same-sex marriage. But that’s a matter of state law, not FFC.
Hmmm. Interesting, thanks.