Those opposed to marriage equality are on the wrong side of history as well as
Gays are among the most committed group there is to marriage. It's too bad
no one around here even cares about that kind of commitment anymore.
The court ruled that since Ohio recognizes other types of out of state marriages
that aren't allowed in Ohio (like first cousin marriage) that it had to
recognize these ones too. So I guess I should thank South Carolina and other
@atl134 --"The court ruled that since Ohio recognizes other
types of out of state marriages that aren't allowed in Ohio (like first
cousin marriage) that it had to recognize these ones too. So I guess I should
thank South Carolina and other southern states..."Hey, now. It
isn't just the Southern states where first cousin marriage is legal --
it's also legal all up the Eastern seaboard, Caliornia, and other states as
well. Roughly half of all the US states have first cousin marriages.Cousin marriages aside -- it's inevitable that states will start
recognizing out-of-state gay marriages. There is no good legal justification not
to, especially since they do recognize cousin marriages. It's a shame that
gay rights have to move forward in this clunky, piecemeal way -- but at least
they are moving forward!
Interesting take on comity laws.
If a couple is legally married in one state, that couple's marriage should
be recognized as legal in all states and by the federal government. That's
how the Full Faith and Credit provision of the US Constitution is supposed to
work. Kudos to Ohio.
Sales tax in one state doesn't apply to another.
"Sales tax in one state doesn't apply to another."Let
me see, here. Utah has a sales tax, but Nevada doesn't. If I am a Nevada
resident but do shopping in Utah, I am still obligated to pay the sales tax.
Also, if I somehow, for some strange reason, owe Utah back sales taxed (I am
still trying to figure out how this would happen), and I move to Nevada to try
and avoid them, I will still be responsible for paying those taxes.
@worfYou are right the full faith and credit clause has never
applied d to sales tax unlike marriage but what is your point? Again with the
@ worf: Actually, sales taxes are recognized across state lines. If I buy a
product in Idaho, when I travel back to Utah, I don't have to pay sales tax
again - it is already recognized that I paid it. If I order a product online, I
have to pay sales tax for the state I live in - but I don't have to pay
sales tax in every state that my purchase is shipped through.When a
same-sex couple is married in one state, those marriages are not recognized in
all other states - using your sales tax analogy, that effectively means they are
taxed again and again on a purchase while others are only taxed once.
George: it's not for me to say, but should a legal gay marriage from one
state be recognized in a state where it's banned? Should the sales tax in
one state be recognized in another? It's an analogy. Really???--: people buy things on line from other states to avoid sales tax.
I just ordered furniture from North Carolina which saved me over two hundred
@worf Your right it is not for you to say, it has already been
determined through the full faith and credit clause.
Oregon has no sales tax. A friend who lives in Utah went there to buy a car, but
when he wanted to register it in Utah, Utah made him pay the sales tax in order
to register it.I guess Utah didn't abide the Oregon sales tax
law, where the car was purchased.
@ Badgerbadger: So, your friend attempted to cheat Utah law by purchasing a car
in Oregon that he intended to use in Utah. Utah law requires residents of Utah
to pay sales taxes - either at the point of purchase or, if the item is bought
out of state or online, to the State of Utah directly.What relevance
does your friend not being able to cheat the State of Utah have to do with
same-sex marriage being recognized?
@Badgerbadger --"I guess Utah didn't abide the Oregon sales
tax law, where the car was purchased."A better example is
drivers' licenses.If I get my driver's license in TN, I
can still drive legally in any other state -- because every state recognizes the
licenses issued by every other state, even though each state has different
requirements for gaining those licenses.Similarly, if I register my
car in my home state, that car is considered legally registered in whatever
state I might travel to. I don't have to purchase a new license plate in
every state I might pass through on a vacation, because every state recognizes
the registrations from every other state.This does present an
interesting question, though. I must obtain my driver's license and my auto
registration in my state of residence. Why does that law not apply to marriages
as well, gay or straight? Is it because marriage licenses don't ever
expire, while the others do? I don't know the answer to that one.
Instituting that law would limit the interstate spread of gay marriages -- but I
bet straight couples would strenuously object as well.
@worf 6:38 p.m. July 27, 2013Sales tax in one state doesn't
apply to another.-------------------"Full Faith and
Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial
Proceedings of every other State."Sales tax is not a public Act,
Record or judicial Proceeding.
States are allowed to make their own rules regarding many things, and marriage
has traditionally been one of those things. As long as a state can demonstrate a
legitimate interest in forbidding marriage to teens or blood relatives, they can
regulate it. However, ever since Loving v. Virginia, states have NOT
been allowed to forbid marriage to interracial couples. It's a matter of
civil rights, and it's not in a state's interest to prohibit marriage
on the basis of race. I believe that states, including Utah, will not be able to
demonstrate that it is in their interest to prohibit the marriage of same-sex
couples. It's only a matter of time before same-sex marriages are performed
in Utah.Indeed, when it comes to recognizing gay marriages performed
in other states, such as mine performed in Iowa, it's probably only a
matter of months. Since Utah doesn't invalidate other states'
marriages between minors or cousins when those couples move to Utah, it seems to
me this is a rather low legal bar to surmount, even without the recent ruling on
someone please explain the reasoning or advantage of having a marriage performed
in one state but living in another state that doesn't recognize the
@crunchem --"someone please explain the reasoning or advantage
of having a marriage performed in one state but living in another state that
doesn't recognize the marriage?"Millions of people move
after they are married. In fact, the DN profiled just such a couple recently,
who moved from California (where they were married) to Utah. I believe one of
the men accepted a professorship at the U of U.Some folks move for
financial stability, some for career advancement, some follow military orders --
there are just as many reasons for gay people to move as for straight people to
@ crunchem: I live in Utah, but have relatives in Idaho, New York, Wyoming,
Arizona, Texas, Oklahoma, Colorado, California, Washington State, Georgia, and
Florida. I also have relatives in Mexico, Canada, and England.Many
couples engage in destination weddings where they travel to some
"exotic" place to have their ceremony.Some couples jump out
of airplanes and marry in midair.There are many reasons to travel
for marriage - not least is the type of wedding you want to have. Additionally,
there are many reasons to live in one state instead of another.Many
same-sex couples, no matter how committed they are, are unable to marry in the
state where they make their life and livelihood. They have no choice but to
travel to other states and marry.Only when same-sex couples have
their marriage rights recognized in the same manner as heterosexual couples,
will they also have the same opportunity to travel for marriage by choice not be
Re: ". . . Republicans and conservatives don't understand about the
Constitution: the Full Faith & Credit Clause."Sure we do.
But we also understand the longstanding, fully Constitutional doctrine that
carves out an exception for those who choose to marry in another state, as a
subterfuge to avoid the requirements and conditions placed on marriage by their
state of residence.This doctrine has often been used to invalidate
foreign [meaning out-of-state] marriages contracted between parties residing in
a state whose laws don't permit their marriage.Democrats and
liberals also understand. They just believe that this law, like any other they
find objectionable or inconvenient, shouldn't apply to them or be enforced,
if it doesn't advance their lawless agenda.
@procuradorfiscal --"But we also understand the longstanding,
fully Constitutional doctrine that carves out an exception for those who choose
to marry in another state, as a subterfuge to avoid the requirements and
conditions placed on marriage by their state of residence."???What in the world are you talking about?Exactly how
is a couple who marries while living in one state, and then moves to another
state, committing any sort of subterfuge??
@ procurador: Surely you are familiar with "In re May's Estate"?
I take it this term "marriage equality" also includes polygamy. So
those who opposed, and continue to oppose legalizing plural marriage, are also
on the wrong side of history. Equality is equality is equality. Those who say
monogamists are "more equal than others" are in error if we accept this
@A ScientistThat's one way of looking at it. A different way
of looking at it is that short term, sure, gays and gay supporters will be on
"the right side of history", but long term? Don't hold your
breath.As for ethics, agree to disagree.