Wedding Planners vs. Norton (DC vote in Congress/same-sex marriage)

[Little_Nemo]

And you evidently don’t agree with the Supreme Court either.

I’m assuming you’re talking about the Defense of Marriage Act. I may be wrong but I thought the Supreme Court has not yet ruled on the constitutionality of that law. My guess is the mostly conservative court doesn’t want to rule on it. If they did, they’d be forced to make a choice between ruling DOMA is unconstitutional and states must recognize same-sex marriages form other states. Or they’d be forced to issue a Dred Scott like decision that it doesn’t matter what the Constitution says, they can’t accept gay people marrying - and they saw what happened to Taney.

[Bricker]

@Little_Nemo

Didn’t see that one coming.

“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.”

Where do you get that this is talking about the District? Article 4 is about relations between the states. Where does a non-state enter into it?

Congress’ plenary authority over the District is established by Art I Sec 8, as I mentioned above.

My interpretation of Section 1 is that it says that each state must recognize the legal acts of other states. The second line says Congress can regulate the details of these acts as a central authority but only within the scope of the direction of the first line. Congress does not have the power to enact a law which would allow states to violate the constitutional requirement for full faith and credit.

And are there any actual cases from the Court that support your interpretation?

I ask because I offered a cite to one of several cases in which the Court carved out the public policy exception and held that states need not recognize acts contrary to their own public policy.

While the Supreme Court has not yet granted cert to a DOMA case, every lower federal court that’s addressed the issue has held DOMA constitutional.

[Cliffy]

@Bricker

So in your view, the Nineteenth Amendment was an unnecessry and cumulative repetition of the rights already guaranteed by the Fourteenth?

Those suffragette idiots wasted a lot of time getting their amendment passed, huh? Beats me why we gave Susan B. Anthony a damn coin.

The Constitution’s provisions have not always been implemented properly – it’s no counterargument to note this. After all, I dare you to tell me the poll tax as applied by state governments in the Jim Crow South was not an unconstitutional violation of one or more of the Reconstruction Amendments. But we’ve got a belt-and-suspenders amendment about that too.

–Cliffy

[Vox_Imperatoris]

@Little_Nemo

The Constitution says that every state must recognize the legality of contracts made in other states. Article 4, Section 1: Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. So if two people get legally married in one state their marriage in legal in all fifty states - and the Constitution doesn’t say “unless they’re gay or something.”

So it looks like you’re the one who needs an amendment. But don’t worry, there’s plenty of other anti-gay people who are already working on it.

I agree with that and do not dispute it. I am also for gay marriage (well, ideally, straight and gay civil unions), so I would appreciate less snark.