Massachusetts judge rules Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional

Yes! Another nail in the coffin of bigotry and discrimination!

Maggie Gallagher makes a good point though. If this isn’t overturned, then the federal government’s ban on polygamy is also unconstitutional.

Yes, all the states eagerly want to institute polygamy, and they are blocked only by a Federal law that was targeted at Mormons.

I know us’n here in Minnesota are jus’ itchin’ to get ourselves two or three wifes. I hope Governor Tom Emmer will sign the “Freedom and Liberty for Patriots Through Having Multiple Hot Good Looking Wives and Multiple Tax Deductions” act when it crosses his governor’s desk.

Family law is usually in the realm of each of the states. The Mormon leaders voluntarily instituted the polygamy ban in order for the federal government to admit Utah into the union. This state – NOT federal – ban is still in effect.

As best I can determine, there is no current federal law banning polygamy.

As a reaction to the Mormons practicing polygamy back then, Congress passed several acts banning such under its constitutional power to enact laws governing territories.

What new culture war? As someone else already said in another blog:

“What Maggie (head up her ass) Gallagher doesn’t recognize is that we have been IN an already existing cultural war since 1993 when Hawaii started the same-sex marriage debate with their first opinion.”

Ironically, having multiple wives has wide cultural history, on virtually every continent. Not so same-sex marriage. I would even guess that putting multiple-spouse marriage on the ballot would have a greater chance of passing than same-sex marriage.

Dennis is incorrect. There is a long history of recorded same-sex unions throughout the world, from informal, unsanctioned relationships to highly ritualized unions and yes, state-sanctioned marriages. Just google on same-sex unions.

“Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.”
- Article. IV, Section. 1, U. S. Constitution

“shall be given”, not “may be given” – as in not optional.

“No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.”
- Defense of Marriage Act

“No State … shall be required”, as in optional, as in contradiction to the Constitution, as in unconstitutional.

Any court honestly defending the Constitution would stick a fork in DOMA, which is why the social conservatives have invested so much time and effort into stacking the Supreme Court with their kind of conservatives.

Given that I am not aware of any lawsuits citing the Full Faith and Credit Clause by any same-sex couple who legally married in one state and then either came back or moved to a state that does not recognize such, I started to do some online research. Well, I found the answer in the first place I looked – the Wikipedia! So don’t quote me on the following recap!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_Faith_and_Credit_Clause:

The courts distinquish between laws (legislative measures and common law) and judgements with the latter accorded greater respect when reconciling cases that involve the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

“According to Andrew Koppelman, a law professor at Northwestern University and the author of The Gay Rights Question in Contemporary American Law, “No state has ever been required by the full faith and credit clause to recognize any marriage they didn’t want to.” This issue first arose with regard to interracial marriage. Until the Supreme Court struck down all laws banning interracial marriage in 1967, a number of states banned interracial marriage and did not accept interracial marriage licenses issued in other states.”

As we know, the Supreme Court has not yet ruled on how the Full Faith and Credit Clause affects same-sex marriages.

This Clause has little impact on the court’s CHOICE OF LAW decision.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choice_of_law:

“Choice of law is a procedural stage in the litigation of a case involving the conflict of laws when it is necessary to reconcile the differences between the laws of different legal jurisdications, such as sovereign states, federated states (as in the US), or provinces. The outcome of this process is potentially to require the courts of one jurisdication to apply the law of a different jurisdiction in lawsuits arising from, say, family law, tort or contract. The law which is applied is sometimes referred to as the ‘proper law.’”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choice_of_law#Family_law

“As to marriage, both formal and common law, the general rule is the lex loci celebrationis determines its validly, i.e. the law of the place where the marriage is celebrated, unless the purpose of the marriage offends a public policy of the domicile/nationality/habitual residence state. Hence, some states limit the capacity of their citizens to celebrate a monogamous marriage to a person of the opposite biological sex, or prohibit marriage between degrees of consanquinity, etc. Questions of nullity and divorce straddle Family Law and status because the outcome of the judicial proceedings affects status and capacities, and also overlap with the more general question of when the courts of one state will recognise and enforce the judgments of another state.”

All this is enough to answer why there haven’t been any such FFAC lawsuits to date, that ultimately the SCOTUS will have to intervene hopefully to invalidate all the state constitutional marriage amendments and state DOMAs.

UFF DA!

Dennis is confusing polygamy with bigamy. There is no federal law against what the FLDS practices because they are civilly married to one woman, but spiritually (i.e. no legal marriage license) to multiple women. These women technically do not get any spousal privileges as far as tax exemption and social security benefits as they are not legally married. There is technically nothing illegal about polygamy, as it’s technically just living with your spouse and your girlfriend (moral arguments of polygamy, notwithstanding). Bigamy, OTH, is fraudulantly filing a civil marriage license to 2 or more different spouses.