Maryland Attorney General to issue out of state same-sex marriage recognition opinion - Lez Get Real

Under the U.S. Constitution's "Full faith and credit" clause they MUST be legally recognized.

That clause will likely spell the demise of DOMA if we can just get one of the anti-gay SOCUS justices to retire or die.

Daniel --- isn't it the prevailing legal interpretation that DOMA overrides that, providing them the option to not recognize if they so choose?

I don't see why he's wondering whether they CAN---what could be preventing them? Recognition of other states' marriages is the default modus operandi. Does Maryland have an amendment banning same-sex marriage?

I do wish some enterprising Congressperson would come up with a couple amendments to DOMA. It should disappear and never be heard from again, but since that will take time to be accepted by a moderate Congress, smaller backtracks would be helpful in the meantime.

Specifically, offering the federal government the option of recognizing same-sex marriages, rather than requiring them to not recognize them, and also requiring all states, regardless of what they think of same-sex marriages, civil unions, or relationships in general, to treat married and civil-unionized and domestic-partnered couples as each other's next of kin. They don't have to call them "married," (yet) but there's utterly no reason why any entity should be able to treat them as legal strangers.

Kyra wrote:

Daniel --- isn't it the prevailing legal interpretation that DOMA overrides that, providing them the option to not recognize if they so choose?
I don't see why he's wondering whether they CAN---what could be preventing them? Recognition of other states' marriages is the default modus operandi. Does Maryland have an amendment banning same-sex marriage?
I do wish some enterprising Congressperson would come up with a couple amendments to DOMA. It should disappear and never be heard from again, but since that will take time to be accepted by a moderate Congress, smaller backtracks would be helpful in the meantime.
Specifically, offering the federal government the option of recognizing same-sex marriages, rather than requiring them to not recognize them, and also requiring all states, regardless of what they think of same-sex marriages, civil unions, or relationships in general, to treat married and civil-unionized and domestic-partnered couples as each other's next of kin. They don't have to call them "married," (yet) but there's utterly no reason why any entity should be able to treat them as legal strangers.

I have mentioned to Daniel and many others that, IMO, DOMA does violate the "principle" of full faith and credit.

But it is not unconstitutional. Why? Because under Article 4 Sec. 1: "...Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof."

It was crafted by Congress to give States the option of recognizing these Unions.

I do agree that there should be a better way; and I believe I have a solution that would satisfy all factions. A "revision" of the Federal DOMA.

1)"Marriage" shall be defined by States, Churches or individual couples as they see fit.

2) For Government purposes, to ensure equal access and benefits under State and Federal Laws, only "Civil Unions" will be recognized. A civil union is between two people and must confer all rights benefits and privileges formerly granted under the term "marriage".

3)States shall be barred from granting additional rights, privileges, or responsibilities to marriages that are denied to Civil Unions.

Problem solved.

Kyra wrote:

Daniel --- isn't it the prevailing legal interpretation that DOMA overrides that, providing them the option to not recognize if they so choose?
I don't see why he's wondering whether they CAN---what could be preventing them? Recognition of other states' marriages is the default modus operandi. Does Maryland have an amendment banning same-sex marriage?
I do wish some enterprising Congressperson would come up with a couple amendments to DOMA. It should disappear and never be heard from again, but since that will take time to be accepted by a moderate Congress, smaller backtracks would be helpful in the meantime.
Specifically, offering the federal government the option of recognizing same-sex marriages, rather than requiring them to not recognize them, and also requiring all states, regardless of what they think of same-sex marriages, civil unions, or relationships in general, to treat married and civil-unionized and domestic-partnered couples as each other's next of kin. They don't have to call them "married," (yet) but there's utterly no reason why any entity should be able to treat them as legal strangers.

DOMA is a federal law. The U.S. Constitution is the "supreme law of the land". NO law, federal, state, or local may contradict the U.S. Constitution. If a law is found to do so, then the court declares it "unconstitutional" and it is null and void.

NO LAW CAN SUPERSEDE THE U.S. CONSTITUTION.

Maryland does have a law which clearly defines marriage in the state to be between a man & a woman. This law was upheld by their Supremes in 2007. Not sure how the AG could go against that on his own.

WeTheSheeple wrote:

Maryland does have a law which clearly defines marriage in the state to be between a man & a woman. This law was upheld by their Supremes in 2007. Not sure how the AG could go against that on his own.

Easy. The U.S. Constitution supersedes it.

For instance, Michigan forbids first-cousin marriage, but Maryland allows it. If 2 first-cousins marry in Maryland, and then travel to, or move their residence to, Michigan, then according to Article IV. of the U.S. Constitution, Michigan MUST recognize that marriage as legally valid.

This is the exact same line of legal reasoning that New York uses to legally recognize out of state gay marriages, because Ne York does not allow gay marriage in the state (yet).

Daniel P from Long Island wrote:

<quoted text>
DOMA is a federal law. The U.S. Constitution is the "supreme law of the land". NO law, federal, state, or local may contradict the U.S. Constitution. If a law is found to do so, then the court declares it "unconstitutional" and it is null and void.
NO LAW CAN SUPERSEDE THE U.S. CONSTITUTION.

My point being, while that's obvious to us, DOMA is currently what's being enforced, as though it supercedes FFAC. I agree that it's wrong. Problem is, the powers that be don't, and in every case where some benefit or right is denied to a pair of us for not being "really married," it's the powers-that-be that are the problem.

If bigotry were so easily ignored we wouldn't be having this problem or needing this law removed.

Blame Clinton for DOMA & DADT. He could've not signed them. But he chose to do so.

Be glad that after the verdict in California on Tuesday, a large number of news outlets began to report this as a "civil rights" matter. That view of it has grown to the point where it cannot be ignored.

The fact that literal *congresspersons*,*judges* and so-called experts can somehow have enshrined prejudice into United States law should come as no surprise. It is less than 150 years ago that the U.S. SUPREME COURT found "separate but equal" 100.0% acceptable -- yep, you read right: the United States Supreme Court upheld it in Plessy v. Ferguson.

Ask legal people what they think of that now. In their own polite terms, they make the court sound like a bunch of dumbasses.

That tells you all you need to know about the current situation.

Daniel P from Long Island wrote:

<quoted text>
Easy. The U.S. Constitution supersedes it.
For instance, Michigan forbids first-cousin marriage, but Maryland allows it. If 2 first-cousins marry in Maryland, and then travel to, or move their residence to, Michigan, then according to Article IV. of the U.S. Constitution, Michigan MUST recognize that marriage as legally valid.

I agree in theory, but that has yet to be proven in court.

Daniel P from Long Island wrote:

Blame Clinton for DOMA & DADT. He could've not signed them. But he chose to do so.

It's possible he felt there were enough votes in Congress to over-ride a veto.

Just a theory.

As I said, I believe a revision of DOMA is the answer. Civil Unions only. Let the churches, zealots, dictionaries, families and individual couples define "marriage".

DNF wrote:

<quoted text>It's possible he felt there were enough votes in Congress to over-ride a veto.
Just a theory.
As I said, I believe a revision of DOMA is the answer. Civil Unions only. Let the churches, zealots, dictionaries, families and individual couples define "marriage".

Well, I think that's a really stupid idea.

But if you really favor that idea, then I suggest that you begin work to change the laws in the 50 states, plus the District Of Columbia, plus the 2 commonwealths (remember which ones they are ?), plus the other territories I didn't mention.

GOOD LUCK !

:)

DNF wrote:

<quoted text>It's possible he felt there were enough votes in Congress to over-ride a veto.
Just a theory.
As I said, I believe a revision of DOMA is the answer. Civil Unions only. Let the churches, zealots, dictionaries, families and individual couples define "marriage".

I assume you mean the government would only allow civil unions for heterosexuals too.

If not, the result might not lead to full rights for gays and lesbians. In many countries that have allowed civil unions, adoption rights are not allowed. One would need a assurance that all rights of married people would be applicable.

"There's a great day a comin'!"