AP: Ehrlich Vetoes Minimum Wage, Gay Rights Bills

[Larry Gude]

The other day the papers noted...

No, because the right to establish marriages is maintained by the state and not the nation (see X Amendment). The state is free to determine what they consider a marriage but they must also recognize what other states have determined it to be as it is their right.

...the one year anniversary of the first gay couple married in, what was it, Mass, I think?

I'm curious how things will go when these people move to another state and some issue comes up regarding property or spousal rights or something and the argument is made that Massachusetts wrongly, because it was the courts claiming the right, allowed gay marriage.

I'll go with you that the states are required to accept a marraige and/or drivers liscense from another state but they already violate the 14th in this fashion as regards a handgun permit or, to a Vermonter, the 2nd amendment itself.

 

[Ken King]

...the one year anniversary of the first gay couple married in, what was it, Mass, I think?

I'm curious how things will go when these people move to another state and some issue comes up regarding property or spousal rights or something and the argument is made that Massachusetts wrongly, because it was the courts claiming the right, allowed gay marriage.

I'll go with you that the states are required to accept a marraige and/or drivers liscense from another state but they already violate the 14th in this fashion as regards a handgun permit or, to a Vermonter, the 2nd amendment itself.

Agreed that the same-sex married couples in Mass that move will be an interesting scenario. As I recall the law, created by the legislature, had specified that persons from other states couldn't just run there and get married returning to their home state as a married couple, but I recall nothing about what happens to their status when long term married gay Mass'ers move to another state.

As to the handgun permits I feel that there should be no need for them at all as a Constitutional right should be all encompassing and supercede the state statutes.

 

[FromTexas]

No, because the right to establish marriages is maintained by the state and not the nation (see X Amendment). The state is free to determine what they consider a marriage but they must also recognize what other states have determined it to be as it is their right.

Actually, no, a state does not have to recognize the marriage of another state. Obviously, all states recognize opposite sex marriages of other states, but they are not required to recognize them. If a same sex couple moves to another state without same sex protections, the state doesn't have to recognize that.

edit: Corrected to say opposite sex marriages as being recognized by all states, which is what I meant.

 

[Ken King]

Actually, no, a state does not have to recognize the marriage of another state. Obviously, all states recognize same sex marriages of other states, but they are not required to recognize them. If a same sex couple moves to another state without same sex protections, the state doesn't have to recognize that.

Which state does not recognize a marriage established in another state?

 

[FromTexas]

Which state does not recognize a marriage established in another state?

I guess you didn't read this well.

Obviously, all states recognize same sex marriages of other states, but they are not required to recognize them.

They are not required to. At all. And actually, that was a typo in my first statement quoted, they all recognize opposite sex marriages but they are not required to. When it comes to same sex marriages, there is no requirement that they do (just as there is no requirement that they recognize opposite sex).

You are asking which states don't recognize another states marriage, which dodges the issue of are they required to.

 

[Ken King]

I read very well, maybe you don't write your intended meaning worth a crap. You said (and I will quote it again just for you)

a state does not have to recognize the marriage of another state.

My question is in regard to that specific statement made by you.

And just so you don't knot your panties too tight as you spin your response I will state that I am aware that DOMA, signed by Clinton in 1996, gives the states the option to not recognize the same-sex marriages, but show me where any state has or exercises the right to not recognize a traditional marriage established in another state.

 

[FromTexas]

I read very well, maybe you don't write your intended meaning worth a crap. You said (and I will quote it again just for you)

My question is in regard to that specific statement made by you.

And just so you don't knot your panties too tight as you spin your response I will state that I am aware that DOMA, signed by Clinton in 1996, gives the states the option to not recognize the same-sex marriages, but show me where any state has or exercises the right to not recognize a traditional marriage established in another state.

Twist what? As far as most things go, no state is obligated to recognize any state right of any other state once you become a resident of that state. That is why they are state rights. The state gets to choose what it allows/disallows within its borders. Its not state rights that effect all states because one state says its so.

Just as a state is not required to collect sales tax for another state when that states citizens are within its borders. Yet, that person is required to pay use tax when they get home (although, everyone here breaks that law).

It seemed to me you were trying to dodge the issue by saying what state does not recognize the traditional marriage of another state. Well, obviously, none do because there is no argument with any state on whether traditional marriages are okay. They are all in agreement. What I thought you were neglecting to focus on is the simple fact that any state is not required to legally recognize what any other state chooses to legally recognize if it is against the laws of that state.

Same with your driver license. Another state says okay, you are cleared to drive and this license is good for five years. If you move to another state the next year, you have to get their license within x period of time and follow their licensing restrictions. You get a grace period, but then you must meet that states requirements to be a driver.

Now, after saying all that, there were issues at some point with states not recognizing other states traditional marriages because of mixed race couples and thus, the equal protection clause came into play for those marriages. I did not think it spilled over to all marriages, but I found sources that say it does (whether its statutory or Constituional is not clear in those cases but I will look at it further). So, you are correct, but also do not make the mistake of thinking states are always required to recognize the rights given by another state to its citizens.

And you never get my panties tight, Ken. You just get them wet when you get that strong arm out. Besides, you were right for once.

 

[Larry Gude]

Well correct me if I'm wrong but...

but also do not make the mistake of thinking states are always required to recognize the rights given by another state to its citizens

...per the 14th states ARE required to respect rights confered by other states.

If you own a car in Nebraska as proved by a state DMV registration card which followed down stream from a bill of sale and a title, then you own it in Maryland. Maryland requiring you to re-register IF you establish residency in Maryland is not non-recognition, it is a requirment to adhere to Maryland law as you are now a resident.

Same with other contracts including marriage.

Firearms is an area of clear violation of this.

Commerce clause.