TX Gays and the Morality Clause

[BOR]

Can you imagine if each time you relocated to a different state your marital status CHANGED? What a mess!

Recognizing Common law may be another matter, even though most states, inlcuding Ohio, have abrogated them

Same sex marriage, as I stated, violates the public policy of most states, so a state can or can not permit it in thier own, not only because of DOMA, but the United States Supreme Court has affixed thier hand to it also, way before DOMA.

 

[Patent Attorney]

@ nextwife - sure, it is a mess for your status to change each time you move to another state; but, consider this: here, a TX gay man wants to get around the morality clause, so he marries his partner in a foreign state, MA, to be recognized in that state as a married couple, then, taking that status and attempting to overcome the Morality Clause in TX, which does not recognize a gay marriage. This, should be against public policy, I would think.

 

[Ohiogal]

Can you imagine if each time you relocated to a different state your marital status CHANGED? What a mess!

And yet if you are homosexual and married, your marital status depends on the state you are within. Gotta love discrimination and bigotry.

 

[Ohiogal]

Recognizing Common law may be another matter, even though most states, inlcuding Ohio, have abrogated them

Same sex marriage, as I stated, violates the public policy of most states, so a state can or can not permit it in thier own, not only because of DOMA, but the United States Supreme Court has affixed thier hand to it also, way before DOMA.

What is your background? Violating public policy does not allow a state to ignore the Constitution. Heck LAWS cannot quite frankly ignore the constitution and withstand judicial scrutiny. DOMA will fall at some point.

 

[Ohiogal]

Recognizing Common law may be another matter, even though most states, inlcuding Ohio, have abrogated them

Same sex marriage, as I stated, violates the public policy of most states, so a state can or can not permit it in thier own, not only because of DOMA, but the United States Supreme Court has affixed thier hand to it also, way before DOMA.

Bull. Ohio recognizes common law marriages from other states. Don't speak of Ohio since you apparently don't get the law.

 

[BOR]

And yet if you are homosexual and married, your marital status depends on the state you are within. Gotta love discrimination and bigotry.

After about 25 years after Loving did AL repeal thier antimiscegenation laws, of course they had no force of law after Loving.

I remember that specifically from years ago.

 

[BOR]

Bull. Ohio recognizes common law marriages from other states. Don't speak of Ohio since you apparently don't get the law.

That was not very friendly. I am just discussing. Ohio did away with CL marriage in 1991. I never said they do not recognize them from other states, and quite frankly I do not know if they do.

 

[BOR]

What is your background? Violating public policy does not allow a state to ignore the Constitution. Heck LAWS cannot quite frankly ignore the constitution and withstand judicial scrutiny. DOMA will fall at some point.

It does not matter what it is, but you can view my profile. I guess you have never heard of Baker v. Nelson??

 

[Ohiogal]

That was not very friendly. I am just discussing. Ohio did away with CL marriage in 1991. I never said they do not recognize them from other states, and quite frankly I do not know if they do.

Quite frankly Ohio does. The whole Full faith and credit thing. Oh and by the way it was not meant to be friendly. YOU do NOT know the law in this area. I do.

 

[BOR]

Quite frankly Ohio does. The whole Full faith and credit thing. Oh and by the way it was not meant to be friendly. YOU do NOT know the law in this area. I do.

Excuse me!! You claim to be a family law attorney and an expert of FFC but never heard of Baker v. Nelson?

Now who is teaching who.

And since you admittedly were defacto UNfriendly I won't bother to dicsuss any more with you, in any thread.

 

[Ohiogal]

Excuse me!! You claim to be a family law attorney and an expert of FFC but never heard of Baker v. Nelson?

Now who is teaching who.

And since you admittedly were defacto UNfriendly I won't bother to dicsuss any more with you, in any thread.

Nice assumption you are making re Baker v. Nelson. You know what they say about assuming? Unfriendly? I can assure you that my heart is in tatters because you won't discuss anything with me anymore. Oh and btw -- a Supreme Court decision of Minnesota -- for the rest of you http://www.cas.umt.edu/phil/faculty/Walton/bakrvnel.htm -- doesn't mean it would withstand scrutiny now. Oh and I know the Supreme Court of the US refused to hear it. Look at Bowers v. Hardwick -- that was overturned by -- oh yeah, Lawrence v. Texas. Plessy v. Ferguson is another example. I could continue.

 

[BOR]

Ever hear of the Full Faith and Credit Clause??

SP, to follow up on this, Baker v. Nelson was a case decided by the Minnesota Supreme Court, it was appealed to the United States Supreme Court and, and don't be fooled by the verbiage here, dismissed "for want of a substantial federal question", meaning it was a decision on the merits, and keeps inferior courts from coming to different conclusions.

The binding effect of Baker is in full force. The California Supreme Court in it's 1st dealing with same sex marriage cited Baker as binding precedent, that is WHY every state that has permitted SS marriage has based it on THIER own Constitutions.

The MN SC ruled that same sex marriage prohibitons do not violate the Federal Constitution.

I follow Domawatch.org, so I am up on what is cited there.

 

[LdiJ]

Ever hear of the Full Faith and Credit Clause??

Yes I have, but it does NOT apply to gay marriage. I believe it was the Clinton administration that pushed through legislation so that it would NOT apply to gay marriage. Google "Defense of Marriage Act". (DOMA). DOMA was specifically enacted so that states not legalizing gay marriage would not be required to give gay marriage "full faith and credit".

Edit to add:

Should have read on before posting.

 

[BOR]

Yes I have, but it does NOT apply to gay marriage. I believe it was the Clinton administration that pushed through legislation so that it would NOT apply to gay marriage. Google "Defense of Marriage Act". (DOMA). DOMA was specifically enacted so that states not legalizing gay marriage would not be required to give gay marriage "full faith and credit".

Edit to add:

Should have read on before posting.

We all do that, find a post interesting and respond to it before reading further.

If you are interested, here is a WIKI piece on Baker and the binding effect.

...Because the case came to the federal Supreme Court through mandatory appellate review (not certiorari), the summary dismissal constituted a decision on the merits and established Baker v. Nelson as controlling precedent.[2]


Baker v. Nelson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[ecmst12]

I'm gonna go back to a totally different point, and state that mom has absolutely no right to restrict who dad dates or lives with one bit once the divorce is final. That clause should be completely stricken from the agreement and hopefully if she pushes the issue, it will be.

And the more kids who grow up with gay parents, the sooner the anti-gay bigotry in this country will die off.