If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
Bookstores Around the World (rec.arts.books) (FAQ) (IMPORTANT UPDATE)
In article ,
"Stanley Moore" said: Now that was a truly hateful screed G. Texas is like nowhere else. Yes, it has problems; what place doesn't? Yes, there are a few blowhards; where can you not find them? Sure there are some drug dealers as well as very nice hardworking Hispanic families. But all in all there is nowhere I'd rather live. You have immense diversity of landscape, cultural orientation, and Texas is well renowned for its friendly people. Take care I noticed this a few days ago... http://tinyurl.com/yboo6jb http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/02/texas-judge-rules-gay-mar_n_307532.html Texas Judge Rules Gay-Marriage Ban Violates U.S. Constitution MATT CURRY | 10/ 1/09 11:43 PM | AP DALLAS -- A Texas judge cleared the way for two Dallas men to get a divorce, ruling Thursday that Texas' ban on same-sex marriage violates the constitutional guarantee to equal protection under the law. Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott said he'd appeal the ruling, which he labeled an attempt to strike down the ban approved by voters in 2005. "The laws and constitution of the State of Texas define marriage as an institution involving one man and one woman," Abbott said in a written statement. "Today's ruling purports to strike down that constitutional definition - despite the fact that it was recently adopted by 75 percent of Texas voters." [ remainder of article deleted ] ....which gives the impression that Texas is blessed with an Attorney General who believes that a 75% plebiscite by state voters suffices to override the United States Constitution. (Oh, and I see that judges are elected there too -- a malfunction that's hardly unique to Texas, of course -- and this particular Dallas County judge, a Democrat, is up for reelection in 2010. I predict a sedate, civilized campaign.) -- wds |
Ads |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
Bookstores Around the World (rec.arts.books) (FAQ) (IMPORTANT UPDATE)
"William December Starr" wrote in message ... In article , "Stanley Moore" said: Now that was a truly hateful screed G. Texas is like nowhere else. Yes, it has problems; what place doesn't? Yes, there are a few blowhards; where can you not find them? Sure there are some drug dealers as well as very nice hardworking Hispanic families. But all in all there is nowhere I'd rather live. You have immense diversity of landscape, cultural orientation, and Texas is well renowned for its friendly people. Take care I noticed this a few days ago... http://tinyurl.com/yboo6jb http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/02/texas-judge-rules-gay-mar_n_307532.html Texas Judge Rules Gay-Marriage Ban Violates U.S. Constitution MATT CURRY | 10/ 1/09 11:43 PM | AP DALLAS -- A Texas judge cleared the way for two Dallas men to get a divorce, ruling Thursday that Texas' ban on same-sex marriage violates the constitutional guarantee to equal protection under the law. Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott said he'd appeal the ruling, which he labeled an attempt to strike down the ban approved by voters in 2005. "The laws and constitution of the State of Texas define marriage as an institution involving one man and one woman," Abbott said in a written statement. "Today's ruling purports to strike down that constitutional definition - despite the fact that it was recently adopted by 75 percent of Texas voters." [ remainder of article deleted ] ...which gives the impression that Texas is blessed with an Attorney General who believes that a 75% plebiscite by state voters suffices to override the United States Constitution. (Oh, and I see that judges are elected there too -- a malfunction that's hardly unique to Texas, of course -- and this particular Dallas County judge, a Democrat, is up for reelection in 2010. I predict a sedate, civilized campaign.) -- wds It is not entierly clear that Texas's (and many other state) constitutionals bans on gay marriage do violate the US Constitution. On the amendment in question I voted against as I would like to get married but I expect it will be a good long while until I can here in Texas. Take care -- Stanley L. Moore "The belief in a supernatural source of evil is not necessary; men alone are quite capable of every wickedness." Joseph Conrad |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
Bookstores Around the World (rec.arts.books) (FAQ) (IMPORTANTUPDATE)
Stanley Moore wrote:
"William December Starr" wrote in message ... In article , "Stanley Moore" said: Now that was a truly hateful screed G. Texas is like nowhere else. Yes, it has problems; what place doesn't? Yes, there are a few blowhards; where can you not find them? Sure there are some drug dealers as well as very nice hardworking Hispanic families. But all in all there is nowhere I'd rather live. You have immense diversity of landscape, cultural orientation, and Texas is well renowned for its friendly people. Take care I noticed this a few days ago... http://tinyurl.com/yboo6jb http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/02/texas-judge-rules-gay-mar_n_307532.html Texas Judge Rules Gay-Marriage Ban Violates U.S. Constitution MATT CURRY | 10/ 1/09 11:43 PM | AP DALLAS -- A Texas judge cleared the way for two Dallas men to get a divorce, ruling Thursday that Texas' ban on same-sex marriage violates the constitutional guarantee to equal protection under the law. Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott said he'd appeal the ruling, which he labeled an attempt to strike down the ban approved by voters in 2005. "The laws and constitution of the State of Texas define marriage as an institution involving one man and one woman," Abbott said in a written statement. "Today's ruling purports to strike down that constitutional definition - despite the fact that it was recently adopted by 75 percent of Texas voters." [ remainder of article deleted ] ...which gives the impression that Texas is blessed with an Attorney General who believes that a 75% plebiscite by state voters suffices to override the United States Constitution. (Oh, and I see that judges are elected there too -- a malfunction that's hardly unique to Texas, of course -- and this particular Dallas County judge, a Democrat, is up for reelection in 2010. I predict a sedate, civilized campaign.) -- wds It is not entierly clear that Texas's (and many other state) constitutionals bans on gay marriage do violate the US Constitution. On the amendment in question I voted against as I would like to get married but I expect it will be a good long while until I can here in Texas. Take care Hi Stanley, The states where courts have overturned the laws restricting marriage to heterosexual couples have done so on the basis of the state constitutional protections - which usually mirror the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. One or more may have also invoked that clause, but what made the cases unappealable to the U.S. Supreme Court is that they were decided under the state constitutions. What the Texas Attorney General seems confused about is the difference between (a) a court decision allowing same sex marriages in Texas and (b) the obligation under Section 1 of Article IV of the U.S. Constitution to give "full faith and credit . . . to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state." The Texas judge had to recognize that this couple was married under the laws of another jurisdiction. Given that, and since they were domiciled in Texas, he would then have had to apply the law of the other jurisdiction and allow them to get a divorce. The judge was exactly correct in his handling of the matter. A little ancient history - from the 1950s, that is. After WWII, Americans began to try different ways of getting divorces without having to prove either adultery or extreme cruelty, the only grounds available at the time. First, people went to Mexico and got quickie divorces there based on residency requirements of mere days. After initial resistance from a number of states to those divorces on the basis that there was no real connection with the jurisdiction, New York recognized the foreign divorces. Then Nevada went into the divorce business with a 14 days residency requirement. Business boomed in Reno and other cities and the other 47 states found that they could not toss off Nevada divorces the way they did Mexican divorces. The reason was the Full Faith and Credit Clause. Once it became apparent that anyone wanting a divorce on the basis of irrevocable breakdown of the marriage could do so in Nevada, the dam broke. By the end of the 60s, just about every state had revised its divorce laws to provide for "no-fault" divorce. The force of the Full Faith and Credit Clause is just now beginning to be felt in the area of same sex marriage. At least as to divorce and probate matters, it is going to compel every state to recognize marriages made in other states. I should note that Connecticut, unlike Massachusetts, does not have a residency requirement for getting married here. As a result, Greenwich is doing a booming marriage business with people coming from New York. -- Francis A. Miniter Oscuramente libros, laminas, llaves siguen mi suerte. Jorge Luis Borges, La Cifra Haiku, 6 |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
Bookstores Around the World (rec.arts.books) (FAQ) (IMPORTANT UPDATE)
Francis A. Miniter wrote:
The force of the Full Faith and Credit Clause is just now beginning to be felt in the area of same sex marriage. FFaC has never applied to marriage. If it did, the couple in Loving vs. Virginia could have simply gotten married in another state, rather than having to appeal their case to the Supreme Court. |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
Bookstores Around the World (rec.arts.books) (FAQ) (IMPORTANT UPDATE)
In article ,
"Mike Schilling" said: Francis A. Miniter wrote: The force of the Full Faith and Credit Clause is just now beginning to be felt in the area of same sex marriage. FFaC has never applied to marriage. If it did, the couple in Loving vs. Virginia could have simply gotten married in another state, rather than having to appeal their case to the Supreme Court. You are mistaken as to the facts of _Loving v. Virginia_, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), http://tinyurl.com/6evy6, http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=388&invol=1. To quote from the decision itself, written by Chief Justice Warren: In June 1958, two residents of Virginia, Mildred Jeter, a Negro woman, and Richard Loving, a white man, were married in the District of Columbia pursuant to its laws. Shortly after their marriage, the Lovings returned to Virginia and established their marital abode in Caroline County. At the October Term, 1958, of the Circuit Court of Caroline County, a grand jury issued an indictment charging the Lovings with violating Virginia's ban on interracial marriages. On January 6, 1959, the Lovings pleaded guilty to the charge and were sentenced to one year in jail; however, the trial judge suspended the sentence for a period of 25 years on the condition that the Lovings leave the State and not return to Virginia together for 25 years. The Lovings then moved back to the District of Columbia and appealed their conviction in Virginia's courts, while also seeking to have a federal court declare the Virginia laws unconstitutional. The federal court decided to hold off until the state court appeals were completed. When Virginia's highest court upheld the convictions, the U.S. Supreme Court, as best as I can tell from the record, chose to reach down and take the case directly from the lower federal court. -- wds |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
Bookstores Around the World (rec.arts.books) (FAQ) (IMPORTANT UPDATE)
William December Starr wrote:
In article , "Mike Schilling" said: Francis A. Miniter wrote: The force of the Full Faith and Credit Clause is just now beginning to be felt in the area of same sex marriage. FFaC has never applied to marriage. If it did, the couple in Loving vs. Virginia could have simply gotten married in another state, rather than having to appeal their case to the Supreme Court. You are mistaken as to the facts of _Loving v. Virginia_, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), http://tinyurl.com/6evy6, http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=388&invol=1. To quote from the decision itself, written by Chief Justice Warren: In June 1958, two residents of Virginia, Mildred Jeter, a Negro woman, and Richard Loving, a white man, were married in the District of Columbia pursuant to its laws. Shortly after their marriage, the Lovings returned to Virginia and established their marital abode in Caroline County. At the October Term, 1958, of the Circuit Court of Caroline County, a grand jury issued an indictment charging the Lovings with violating Virginia's ban on interracial marriages. On January 6, 1959, the Lovings pleaded guilty to the charge and were sentenced to one year in jail; however, the trial judge suspended the sentence for a period of 25 years on the condition that the Lovings leave the State and not return to Virginia together for 25 years. The Lovings then moved back to the District of Columbia and appealed their conviction in Virginia's courts, while also seeking to have a federal court declare the Virginia laws unconstitutional. The federal court decided to hold off until the state court appeals were completed. When Virginia's highest court upheld the convictions, the U.S. Supreme Court, as best as I can tell from the record, chose to reach down and take the case directly from the lower federal court. OK, I should have said more generally "appeal to the federal courts". My main point, though, that FFaC doesn't apply to marriages, stands. The case was decided on due process and equal protection grounds; FFaC was not an issue. |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
Bookstores Around the World (rec.arts.books) (FAQ) (IMPORTANTUPDATE)
Mike Schilling wrote:
Francis A. Miniter wrote: The force of the Full Faith and Credit Clause is just now beginning to be felt in the area of same sex marriage. FFaC has never applied to marriage. Wrong. See _Williams v. North Carolina_ , 317 U.S. 287, 63 S.Ct. 207, 87 L.Ed. 279, 143 A.L.R. 1273 (1942), revisited in 325 U.S. 226, 65 S.Ct. 1092 (1945) without modification of the basic principle that a state with power to grant a divorce is entitled to full faith and credit. _Sherrer v. Sherrer_ , 334 U.S. 343, 68 S.Ct. 1087, 92 L.Ed. 1429 (1948) put the quietus to that question. A further gloss on the subject - disallowing third party attacks on such divorces - was made in Johnson v. Muelberger, 340 U.S. 581, 71 S.Ct. 474 (1951). After that it was black letter law and not challenged again. If it did, the couple in Loving vs. Virginia could have simply gotten married in another state, rather than having to appeal their case to the Supreme Court. Wrong again. Please read _Loving v. Virginia_, 388 U.S. 1, 87 S. Ct. 1817; 18 L. Ed. 2d 1010 (1967). The Lovings did in fact leave Virginia to go to D.C. to get married. The problem arose when they returned as a married couple to Virginia and were prosecuted as criminals under the Virginia miscegenation laws, with the authorities actually using their marriage certificate as evidence of the crime. It was only after the Virginia Supreme Court upheld their criminal convictions that the case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. -- Francis A. Miniter Oscuramente libros, laminas, llaves siguen mi suerte. Jorge Luis Borges, La Cifra Haiku, 6 |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
Bookstores Around the World (rec.arts.books) (FAQ) (IMPORTANTUPDATE)
Mike Schilling wrote:
William December Starr wrote: In article , "Mike Schilling" said: Francis A. Miniter wrote: The force of the Full Faith and Credit Clause is just now beginning to be felt in the area of same sex marriage. FFaC has never applied to marriage. If it did, the couple in Loving vs. Virginia could have simply gotten married in another state, rather than having to appeal their case to the Supreme Court. You are mistaken as to the facts of _Loving v. Virginia_, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), http://tinyurl.com/6evy6, http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=388&invol=1. To quote from the decision itself, written by Chief Justice Warren: In June 1958, two residents of Virginia, Mildred Jeter, a Negro woman, and Richard Loving, a white man, were married in the District of Columbia pursuant to its laws. Shortly after their marriage, the Lovings returned to Virginia and established their marital abode in Caroline County. At the October Term, 1958, of the Circuit Court of Caroline County, a grand jury issued an indictment charging the Lovings with violating Virginia's ban on interracial marriages. On January 6, 1959, the Lovings pleaded guilty to the charge and were sentenced to one year in jail; however, the trial judge suspended the sentence for a period of 25 years on the condition that the Lovings leave the State and not return to Virginia together for 25 years. The Lovings then moved back to the District of Columbia and appealed their conviction in Virginia's courts, while also seeking to have a federal court declare the Virginia laws unconstitutional. The federal court decided to hold off until the state court appeals were completed. When Virginia's highest court upheld the convictions, the U.S. Supreme Court, as best as I can tell from the record, chose to reach down and take the case directly from the lower federal court. OK, I should have said more generally "appeal to the federal courts". Well, they had no choice but to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Virginia Supreme Court had upheld their criminal conviction. They had no further route of appeal except to the Supremes. By the way, they would not have been allowed to take the case to the U.S. District Courts, because the federal laws regarding jurisdiction, dating from 1792, allow only appeals to the Supremes from the highest court of the state in which a judgment may be had,. My main point, though, that FFaC doesn't apply to marriages, stands. The case was decided on due process and equal protection grounds; FFaC was not an issue. Still wrong. See my post of a few minutes ago. Loving was not a case of recognition of foreign marriage case. Virginia, as I said, used their marriage certificate as evidence that the crime of miscegenation occurred. But there are plenty other full faith and credit cases involving divorce. Read the cases I cited. -- Francis A. Miniter Oscuramente libros, laminas, llaves siguen mi suerte. Jorge Luis Borges, La Cifra Haiku, 6 |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
Bookstores Around the World (rec.arts.books) (FAQ) (IMPORTANT UPDATE)
Francis A. Miniter wrote:
Mike Schilling wrote: Francis A. Miniter wrote: The force of the Full Faith and Credit Clause is just now beginning to be felt in the area of same sex marriage. FFaC has never applied to marriage. Wrong. See _Williams v. North Carolina_ , 317 U.S. 287, 63 S.Ct. 207, 87 L.Ed. 279, 143 A.L.R. 1273 (1942), revisited in 325 U.S. 226, 65 S.Ct. 1092 (1945) without modification of the basic principle that a state with power to grant a divorce is entitled to full faith and credit. _Sherrer v. Sherrer_ , 334 U.S. 343, 68 S.Ct. 1087, 92 L.Ed. 1429 (1948) put the quietus to that question. A further gloss on the subject - disallowing third party attacks on such divorces - was made in Johnson v. Muelberger, 340 U.S. 581, 71 S.Ct. 474 (1951). After that it was black letter law and not challenged again. Those are divorces, not marriages. If it did, the couple in Loving vs. Virginia could have simply gotten married in another state, rather than having to appeal their case to the Supreme Court. Wrong again. Please read _Loving v. Virginia_, 388 U.S. 1, 87 S. Ct. 1817; 18 L. Ed. 2d 1010 (1967). The Lovings did in fact leave Virginia to go to D.C. to get married. The problem arose when they returned as a married couple to Virginia and were prosecuted as criminals under the Virginia miscegenation laws, with the authorities actually using their marriage certificate as evidence of the crime. It was only after the Virginia Supreme Court upheld their criminal convictions that the case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. They were married legally in DC but Virginia did not recognize that marriage as legal. That's a violation of FFaC. When the Supreme Court overturned Virginia's Racial Integrity Act, the grounds were Equal Protection and Due Process, not the fact that is violated FFaC. |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
Bookstores Around the World (rec.arts.books) (FAQ) (IMPORTANTUPDATE)
Francis A. Miniter wrote:
Mike Schilling wrote: William December Starr wrote: In article , "Mike Schilling" said: Francis A. Miniter wrote: My main point, though, that FFaC doesn't apply to marriages, stands. The case was decided on due process and equal protection grounds; FFaC was not an issue. Still wrong. See my post of a few minutes ago. Loving was not a case of recognition of foreign marriage case. Virginia, as I said, used their marriage certificate as evidence that the crime of miscegenation occurred. But there are plenty other full faith and credit cases involving divorce. Read the cases I cited. P.S. Why would you think that the Full Faith and Credit Clause would not apply to marriage? The language of the section does not make any limitations on the breadth of the provision. -- Francis A. Miniter Oscuramente libros, laminas, llaves siguen mi suerte. Jorge Luis Borges, La Cifra Haiku, 6 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Bookstores Around the World (rec.arts.books) (FAQ) | Evelyn C. Leeper | Books | 0 | July 13th 08 04:48 PM |
Bookstores Around the World (rec.arts.books) (FAQ) | Evelyn C. Leeper | Books | 0 | June 8th 08 04:39 PM |
Bookstores Around the World (rec.arts.books) (FAQ) | Evelyn C. Leeper | Books | 0 | March 19th 08 02:09 PM |
Bookstores Around the World (rec.arts.books) (FAQ) | Evelyn C. Leeper | Books | 0 | May 14th 07 07:48 PM |
Bookstores Around the World (rec.arts.books) (FAQ) | Evelyn C. Leeper | Books | 0 | August 3rd 06 02:57 PM |