Quote:
Originally Posted by ImnoMensa  |
From your link
Quote:
The absence of a federal law could mean that the more than 40 states that have bans -- either constitutional or in statute -- on same-sex marriage would be required to recognize a homosexual marriage license from another state as a legally binding contract.
Sen. Obama's position paper was likely referencing the federal definition provision that would extend Social Security and other government benefits to same-sex couples, said Lynn Wardle, a law professor at Brigham Young University. Nonetheless, this could effectively nationalize same-sex marriage, Wardle said.
"If a judge in San Francisco says 'for Social Security purposes, that's the law,' then a trial judge in San Francisco could affect the whole country," Wardle told Cybercast News Service.
"A marriage is valid where it's performed and valid everywhere, with one exception, if it violates public policy," she said. "As a political move, this would inevitably mean gay marriage in most states. It's a step in nationalizing gay marriage."
|
This was my only support (either pro same sex or con) of a "Marriage Amendment".
The way i saw it, without a Marriage Amendment, one State could invalidate a marriage performed in another State.
My support for a "Marriage Amendment" was only to make the playing field the same accross the board. I wasnt supporting Blocking of Same Sex marriages, i could just see someone in Utah not having their Marriage in California being recognized. On the flip side, i could also see Utah being forced to recognize a marriage that its own Constitution forbids. I saw a Federal "Marriage Amendment" mitigating that.
But then someone posted that not all states have "Common Law" marriage, yet they do recognized "Common Law" marriages from other states, so how would a same sex marriage be different?