Quote:
|
Originally Posted by kg_veteran
Under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution, each state has to honor the sovereignty of the other states by honoring the laws of the other states. What this means practically speaking is that if I get married in Texas, I am still married if my wife and I move to another state. That other state has to recognize our marriage because it is valid and binding under the laws of the State of Texas. As I'm sure you are all aware, the federal DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) was passed in 1996. It defines marriage as being between a man and a woman and says that states don't have to honor any other kind of marriage completed in another state. In other words, if a gay couple gets married in Massachusetts, the state of Texas doesn't have to honor that marriage.
The reasoning behind a federal marriage amendment is basically the same as the reasoning for passing the amendment we just passed in Texas. Proponents of the federal DOMA are worried that when the Supreme Court reviews DOMA (as I'm sure it will at some point down the road) that the Supreme Court may strike it down as unconstitutional. This would have the effect of "forcing" states where gay marriages are illegal to honor gay marriages from other states.
It's an interesting debate, but I think if you're really in favor of states rights, then you should be in favor of the federal marriage amendment act. It doesn't prohibit any state from legalizing gay marriage. It simply prohibits one state from effectively changing the marriage laws of the other 49 states.
|
I feel you, but I'm having a hard time reconciling the converse. You said that if you married a woman, that union would be protected by the Constitution across states. But at the same time you characterize the protection of same-sex marriages as being "forced upon" other states. On a Constitutional level, exactly what are you talking about?
DOMA notwithstanding, do you suggest that the Full Faith and Credit clause applies to everyone except the fags?