The US constitution requires, in the full faith and credit clause that legal records from one state must be accepted in others. The supreme court rules that this applies to licenses issued, which is why any license issued, be it medical, law, drivers', etc, must be accepted in all states. The constitution does not give any exception to this requirement in regards to marriage licenses. However, DOMA allows states to choose to not recognize legal marriages from other states, and refuse to given marriage rights to them. How is it that DOMA has not been ruled unconstitutional on these grounds? It is blatantly unconstitutional. If a state chooses not to allow same sex marriages to be performed in their state, and choose not to recognize those marriages, that is one thing, but giving them permission to violate the constitution by refusing to recognize legal marriages from other states is going to far. What's next? Am I going to be arrested for driving without a license if I go to another state?
Not all licenses cross state boundaries insurance and conceal and carry do not. perhaps there is some relation since the Supreme Court has allowed it?
From what I understand, it only applies to things that are allowed from in all states. A state that does not allow concealed weapons at all, and only allows open carry does not have to allow a conceal permit from another state be used in theirs. But a state that DOES allow a conceal permit, has to accept one from another state. It has something to do with equal treatment under the law. States do not have to allow things from other states that they don't allow for their own residence.
This is incorrect. Two states which allow concealed carry do not have to recognize another states permit.
The answer is: The Defense of Marriage Act, Section 2: When the Supreme Court ruled in the Windsor case, they only struck Section 3 of DOMA. Section 2 remains valid law until such time as Congress repeals it or the Court overturns it in response to some other challenge.
I believe that congress passed a bill making conceal permits the same as drivers' license. You can enter another state for a limited time on your own state's permit, provided the state you are entering allows carry conceal, but after 30 days, your permit is void, and you have to pay a fee to get one from the other state. I know it passed the House. I had heard it passed the senate too and was signed.
The full faith and credit clause in the constitution requires that general licenses issued by one state be accepted as legal in all other states. It gives no exceptions to marriage licenses. Therefore, DOMA section 2 is unconstotutional.
They didn't. Not all states have reciprocity with one another. My permit in ohio is not recognized in PA. I have to get a non resident license it PA in order to carry. Seriously, no.
Not so fast: This is what Section 2 of DOMA is - Congress prescribing the effect of acts, records, and proceedings involving legal recognition of same-sex marriages. Moreover, there's a long history of the courts distinguishing between states' public policies codified in law, and court judgements. Generally speaking, they hold that there is no public policy exception to the full faith and credit clause concerning judgments, but do not take the same view concerning state laws. The question of how this will play out concerning marriage is unresolved. We can look to the Loving case on interracial marriage for possible precedents, but until the Supreme Court settles the outstanding controversies of law, we're left with the law as it currently stands. As much as we may think DOMA's Section 2 should be unconstitutional, it remains valid, enforceable law for now.
The supreme court ruled that the federal government could not deny gay amrriages rights. They did nothing to adress the fact that states are still allowed, through DOMA, to deny rights to legally married couples who move to their states. Full Faith and Credit applies to legal marriages. A state can't tell a straight couple that they are not married because their marriage was performed in another state. By allowing them to treat gay marriages different, you are deny gay couples equal treatment under the law.
This is a very good argument, but there is already a well established public policy exception to the FF&C. Age of consent varies from state to state, and the courts have held that a marriage performed in another state which is outside their age of consent standards, they do not have to recognize the marriage.
As a matter of equal protection under the 14th, yes. Not as a matter of the full faith and credit clause.
I suggest it's possible that section 2 of DOMA still stands because it has not been tested. The Windsor case did not address that part of DOMA, since Windsor was not asking that a marriage performed elsewhere be recognized by New York. So it could well be the case that when any one of these cases throwing out individual states' refusal to recognize marriages from other states reaches SCOTUS, section 2 of DOMA will be tossed as well. As an aside, I gotta love the "Defense of Marriage Act" actually preventing and restricting marriage. Why not name it the POMA, the "Prevention of Marriage Act"? Orwell lives!
It's a matter of both. Full faith and credit applies to marriage licenses The court made that ruling years ago. So, a law which blatantly violates full faith and credit by allowing states to not recognize out of state state gay marriages, violates both the 14th amendment, since it singles out gays and no one else, and full faith and credit.
Accept that you can not apply public policy in a way that violates the 14th amendment. So, since refual to recognize legal gay marriages from other states violates the 14th amendment, it can not be used as an exception to FF&C.
While I agree, I think this is the wrong argument to make. I think the best way to proceed is to keep challenging same sex marriage bans as has been happening for the past 3 years. Each and every ban challenged has fallen due to 14th amendment grounds. The FF&C argument may come in to play when a large majority of states recognize same sex marriage, but to use it now won't work.
Except it doesn't violate full faith and credit, for the reasons I've already discussed. The full clause matters, including the part that gives Congress the power to determine the effect of the clause, including no effect at all where same-sex marriage recognition is concerned. To be clear, it's this action by Congress, along with actions of the states, that have created a scenario where the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause is likely to play a role in the ultimate demise of Section 2. It's tricky though, since the 14th applies to the states, whereas DOMA is federal law. But if the Court's ruling on DOMA Section 3 is any indication, they might go this route: So I stand by my position - it's the violation of equal protection that is more likely to doom Section 2 than the full faith and credit clause; the latter doesn't have the kind of force that people would like to assign it. - - - Updated - - - Now you've got it.
A public policy exemption can't be given to something that already violates the constitution. So, the fact that DOMA violates the 14th amendment means that there is no legal exemption to it's violation of FF&C.
