Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Osmosis Jones]

Wait... how can a state constitutionally bar something? I thought the constitution required federal level politics to influence?

[Jervill]

Each state has its own constitution, from there it tends to just follow the U.S. constitution, except they tend to be more specific about many matters, such as taxation, funding for state highways, etc.

[Zrk2]

And gays. And dumb social conservative shit like that. 'Cuz fuck 'em. THEY DUN TOOKED ER JERBS.

[RedKing]

And gays. And dumb social conservative shit like that. 'Cuz fuck 'em. THEY DUN TOOKED ER JERBS.

Yep. Lurleen done went to beauty school and evrything, and she can't get no job cutting hair onnacount of teh gays.
'Least now I don' hafta worry about marryin' no gay feller. I'se a-might concerned 'bout that.

[Osmosis Jones]

Ah. So can state constitution overpower federal at all? I.e. if Capitol hill passed a law allowing gay marriage (yes, yes, unlikely as it is), would NC be allowed to refuse? I'm assuming not, but your country's politics are pretty arcane...

[GlyphGryph]

Full Faith and Credit means they can still make it illegal in their own state, even constitutionally, but since its a contract, they'd have to honor it if it happened in another one.

Only reason they don't have to honour it now is because of federal laws to the contrary.

But yeah, the Supreme Court can overturn state constitution elements, but the federal congress can't /broaden/ the laws like that and force states to marry people they don't want to be allowed to marry - or they aren't supposed to be able to.

[Karlito]

Federal laws take precedence over state laws. But same sex marriage is currently not recognized at the federal level and that probably won't change any time soon.

_{Damn ninjas.}

[RedKing]

Ah. So can state constitution overpower federal at all? I.e. if Capitol hill passed a law allowing gay marriage (yes, yes, unlikely as it is), would NC be allowed to refuse? I'm assuming not, but your country's politics are pretty arcane...

Therein lies the rub. Federal law trumps state constitution, but the way it's written, all powers not explicitly granted to the US Congress are supposed to devolve to the states. This is the crux of the whole "States' Rights" argument. States (particularly the gay-hatin' ones) are going to argue that since there is nothing specifically in the Constitution empowering Congress to determine the definition of "marriage", then it is left to each state to decide. Congress, for its part, could probably argue that it falls either under interstate commerce (because we have a patchwork where a couple could be legally married in their home state and not in another state) or that such state constitutions are in violation of the Constitution, specifically with regards to equal protections and "pursuit of happiness".

Last time we had a situation where someone could have different legal statuses in different states, it was over slavery. We know how that turned out. There's already been an instance I know of where a lesbian couple were on vacation in a state that didn't recognize it (I want to say either Texas or Florida) and one fell gravely ill. The hospital and local law enforcement refused to allow her partner any kind of visitation rights, and she finally died in the hospital, alone. IIRC, the lawsuit failed in state court, because they were in accordance with state law. Dunno what ever became of that case, but I'm guessing it didn't go to Federal court.

@GlyphGryph: Actually, states are not legally bound to honor marriages from other states or countries. They do so as customary law, but AFAIK this amendment specifically bars North Carolina from legally recognizing same-sex marriages from other states.



EDIT: Also, a quick note to say that although the Dems may stand to pick up a seat now that Dick Lugar is out, the man deserves some credit: he was instrumental in crafting the legislation that allowed us to help the remnants of the Soviet Union safely downsize their nuclear arsenal. That's no small thing.

[nenjin]

Congress, for its part, could probably argue that it falls either under interstate commerce (because we have a patchwork where a couple could be legally married in their home state and not in another state) or that such state constitutions are in violation of the Constitution, specifically with regards to equal protections and "pursuit of happiness".

Is it Interstate Commerce? I thought the main federal argument was the inability to resolve Full Faith and Credit because states where Gay Marriage is illegal would just flat out refuse to recognize it. (At which point it becomes interstate commerce when insurance, property rights ect....extend over state lines.

[GlyphGryph]

@GlyphGryph: Actually, states are not legally bound to honor marriages from other states or countries. They do so as customary law, but AFAIK this amendment specifically bars North Carolina from legally recognizing same-sex marriages from other states. 

The question was whether or not they would have to if federal laws against it were lifted. The federal laws are the only thing getting them out from under Article IV Section I right now. It's still sort of bullshit, of course, but with the federal governments backing there's not much to be said about it.

If that /changed/, and the feds started recognizing same sex marriages in any form, no state constitution could prevent them from being recognized as a legal marriage.

It should also be noticed that the situation, as is, is almost certainly unconstitutional, at least by precedent of the clause's application to marriage law, but decisions have been... split. And the Supreme Court is less than interested in ruling on it.

Essentially,

@GlyphGryph: Actually, states are not legally bound to honor marriages from other states or countries.

They are legally bound, but they're ignoring that fact about as hard as Massachusetts is ignoring the fact that medical marijuana is illegal. And the Feds aren't sending in raiding parties to make sure the GayBan states are recognizing marriages, because federal law is with them.

[mainiac]

And the Feds aren't sending in raiding parties to make sure the GayBan states are recognizing marriages, because federal law is with them.

This gave me a mental image of bands of adventurers setting out in pink armor and wizard robes to enforce the federal government's gay agenda.  The rogues wear leather while the bards are already gay enough just by being bards.  I think that we can all agree that this would be a far, far better system of governance then what we go going on.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

They do so as customary law, but AFAIK this amendment specifically bars North Carolina from legally recognizing same-sex marriages from other states.

"Greetings. We're North Carolina and we're telling you, gay citizens of San Francisco, that your marriage is fake. Please respect our rights and rescind your marriage license. Thank you."

They should just include a mandatory provision to forcefully annul gay marriages [In NC territory of course! It's STATE's rights!] being conducted/participated in inside the state, because, fuck it, that's what god wants.

[lemon10]

It would require a change to the federal constitution (like they did with slavery) to override a states choice on same sex marriage, anything else would probably be unconstitutional (since control of stuff like that is supposed to go to the states).

[Mictlantecuhtli]

It would require a change to the federal constitution (like they did with slavery) to override a states choice on same sex marriage, anything else would probably be unconstitutional (since control of stuff like that is supposed to go to the states).

Constitution? What's that? Not more important than the bible!

[mainiac]

It would require a change to the federal constitution (like they did with slavery) to override a states choice on same sex marriage, anything else would probably be unconstitutional (since control of stuff like that is supposed to go to the states).

Not too difficult as we already made such a constitutional amendment a century and a half back.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

And there is not exactly a dearth of examples of congress intervening to protect personal rights at the state level.

This is coming on top of the original text specifying that rights and privileges in one state can not be denied at another and explicitly granting the supreme court jurisdiction in legal disputes between the states.  So no states do not have the freedom to go around denying people rights.