Comments

  1. bandanajack says

    at no point in that news piece did they mention the constitutional question. a legal contract valid in one state must be recognized in any other state. 14th amendment.

  2. TKinSC says

    “the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2013 ruling against section three of the so-called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) made it so that the federal government must recognize all couples wed in marriage equality states”

    Not quite. It made it so that the federal government must recognize all couples considered married by the state in which they live and (if different) the forum state in question.

    In other words, the federal government may not refuse to recognize a marriage that it would otherwise recognize for the sole reason that the couple are of the same sex, but may refuse to recognize it based on the fact that the couple’s state of residence, or (if different) the forum state in question, doesn’t (even if the reason for that is that the couple are of the same sex).

    A federal court or government agency in Nebraska is not required to treat a couple as married just because they have an Iowa marriage certificate, and if the couple lives in Nebraska, then no federal court or government agency anywhere is required to treat them as married.

    “a legal contract valid in one state must be recognized in any other state. 14th amendment.”

    I think you have your constitutional provisions mixed up. You might be thinking of the Full Faith and Credit clause in Article IV, but that clause doesn’t force Nebraska to recognize a couple married in Iowa as married in Nebraska … at most it means Nebraska must recognize them as married in Iowa. But even then, the FF&C clause allows Congress to determine “the effect thereof”, and Congress by passing DOMA Section 2 has declared that no effect shall be required.

  3. P says

    “Though a similar case compelled an Ohio Supreme Court justice to rule that his state must recognize out-of-state gay marriages…” I believe you’re thinking of Judge Timothy Black from the Southern District of Ohio–a federal court. I’m not aware that the Ohio Supreme Court (a state court) has weighed in on this particular issue.

  4. Bill says

    And DOMA’s section 2 has nothing to go with this. It’s a provision that everyone has recognized as empty since in it Congress asserted a right some states already May or may not have. It’s state law vs the US Constitution.

    Good to see towleroad is advertising for writers. Maybe we’ll see less of this amateur pseudo-expertise..

Leave A Reply