Bookstores Around the World (rec.arts.books) (FAQ) (IMPORTANT UPDATE)

Francis A. Miniter wrote:
Mike Schilling wrote:
Francis A. Miniter wrote:

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.

I don't know why it doesn't, but it never has. E.g. if it did,
DOMA
would be clearly unconstitutional.


No. DOMA, if it is not repealed, will fall to an equal
protection argument and the reasoning will be parallel to
the reasoning in Loving.

You think Kennedy will vote that way? None of the four assholes will.

David DeLaney wrote:
Mike Schilling wrote:
Francis A. Miniter wrote:
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.

I don't know why it doesn't, but it never has. E.g. if it did,
DOMA
would be clearly unconstitutional.

DOMA _is_ clearly unconstitutional. The problems are that a) nothing
actually STOPS Congress, or state legislatures or city councils,
etc., from passing laws that are unconstitutional, and b) nobody has
actually taken the steps needed to get DOMA struck DOWN as
unconstitutional ... which steps do NOT involve the legislative or
executive branches, as everyone knows.

DOMA has been around since 1996, and here's been same-sex marriage to
test it with since 2004. What's holding things up?

On Oct 13, 9:00*pm, (David DeLaney) wrote:
DOMA _is_ clearly unconstitutional. The problems are that a) nothing actually
STOPS Congress, or state legislatures or city councils, etc., from passing
laws that are unconstitutional

Nothing stops them? What about their oath to support and defend the
constitution?

Mike Schilling wrote:
Francis A. Miniter wrote:

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.

I don't know why it doesn't, but it never has. E.g. if it did, DOMA
would be clearly unconstitutional.


Well, yes, I think we're in complete agreement here.

--
Evelyn C. Leeper
I don't need a friend who changes when I change and who nods
when I nod; my shadow does that much better. -Plutarch

Evelyn Leeper wrote:
Mike Schilling wrote:
Francis A. Miniter wrote:

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.

I don't know why it doesn't, but it never has. E.g. if it did, DOMA
would be clearly unconstitutional.


Well, yes, I think we're in complete agreement here.


Hi Evelyn,

He has no clue what he is talking about. See my two posts
in response to this one.

--
Francis A. Miniter

Oscuramente
libros, laminas, llaves
siguen mi suerte.

Jorge Luis Borges, La Cifra Haiku, 6

Mike Schilling wrote:
Francis A. Miniter wrote:
Mike Schilling wrote:
Francis A. Miniter wrote:
Mike Schilling wrote:
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.
And divorces do not come from marriages????
Divorces and marriages are different things. Related but different.
Honestly.
They all come under marital status. See my quotes from
Williams which you conveniently deleted.

Right. They don't aply because they're about divorce, not marriage.
I never denied that FFaC has been used in divorces.
So you see, VIRGINIA RECOGNIZED THE MARRIAGE TOOK PLACE. IT
DID NOT MAKE A g-d DIFFERENCE!!!
Of course it took place. There was a license and everything.
Maybe
even pictures. Did FFaC make it legal in Virginia? Nope.
Again, you are failing to understand. They were prosecuted
under a criminal law.

If a marriage performed in state A is illegal in state B, A isn't
exactly honoring that marriage, is it?



You are hopeless. I have tried to be patient, but you won't
even go to the sources. I don't know if you find them too
difficult or what. But unless you read them and unless you
can understand that marriage and divorce are two sides of
the same coin - marital status - and unless you study page
311 of the Williams case, it is useless to discuss this
further with you.

--
Francis A. Miniter

Oscuramente
libros, laminas, llaves
siguen mi suerte.

Jorge Luis Borges, La Cifra Haiku, 6

Mike Schilling wrote:
David DeLaney wrote:
Mike Schilling wrote:
Francis A. Miniter wrote:
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.
I don't know why it doesn't, but it never has. E.g. if it did,
DOMA
would be clearly unconstitutional.
DOMA _is_ clearly unconstitutional. The problems are that a) nothing
actually STOPS Congress, or state legislatures or city councils,
etc., from passing laws that are unconstitutional, and b) nobody has
actually taken the steps needed to get DOMA struck DOWN as
unconstitutional ... which steps do NOT involve the legislative or
executive branches, as everyone knows.

DOMA has been around since 1996, and here's been same-sex marriage to
test it with since 2004. What's holding things up?



I guess you didn't bother to read my posts from two hours
before you posted the above.

--
Francis A. Miniter

Oscuramente
libros, laminas, llaves
siguen mi suerte.

Jorge Luis Borges, La Cifra Haiku, 6

David DeLaney wrote:
Mike Schilling wrote:
Francis A. Miniter wrote:
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.
I don't know why it doesn't, but it never has. E.g. if it did, DOMA
would be clearly unconstitutional.

DOMA _is_ clearly unconstitutional. The problems are that a) nothing actually
STOPS Congress, or state legislatures or city councils, etc., from passing
laws that are unconstitutional,

Until tested in a case and controversy, it is not that easy
to determine constitutionality of a law (or proposed law).
That is why the Supreme Court exists and that is why the
decision in Marbury v. Madison is what it is.

and b) nobody has actually taken the steps
needed to get DOMA struck DOWN as unconstitutional ... which steps do NOT
involve the legislative or executive branches, as everyone knows.


Wrong. There are plenty of cases that are on their way
through the courts testing DOMA. See my post in response to
Mike.

--
Francis A. Miniter

Oscuramente
libros, laminas, llaves
siguen mi suerte.

Jorge Luis Borges, La Cifra Haiku, 6

Francis A. Miniter wrote:
Mike Schilling wrote:
Francis A. Miniter wrote:
Mike Schilling wrote:
Francis A. Miniter wrote:
Mike Schilling wrote:
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.
And divorces do not come from marriages????
Divorces and marriages are different things. Related but
different.
Honestly.
They all come under marital status. See my quotes from
Williams which you conveniently deleted.

Right. They don't aply because they're about divorce, not
marriage.
I never denied that FFaC has been used in divorces.
So you see, VIRGINIA RECOGNIZED THE MARRIAGE TOOK PLACE. IT
DID NOT MAKE A g-d DIFFERENCE!!!
Of course it took place. There was a license and everything.
Maybe
even pictures. Did FFaC make it legal in Virginia? Nope.
Again, you are failing to understand. They were prosecuted
under a criminal law.

If a marriage performed in state A is illegal in state B, A isn't
exactly honoring that marriage, is it?



You are hopeless. I have tried to be patient, but you won't
even go to the sources. I don't know if you find them too
difficult or what. But unless you read them and unless you
can understand that marriage and divorce are two sides of
the same coin - marital status - and unless you study page
311 of the Williams case, it is useless to discuss this
further with you.

Useless is right.

Francis A. Miniter wrote:
Mike Schilling wrote:
David DeLaney wrote:
Mike Schilling wrote:
Francis A. Miniter wrote:
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.
I don't know why it doesn't, but it never has. E.g. if it did,
DOMA
would be clearly unconstitutional.
DOMA _is_ clearly unconstitutional. The problems are that a)
nothing
actually STOPS Congress, or state legislatures or city councils,
etc., from passing laws that are unconstitutional, and b) nobody
has
actually taken the steps needed to get DOMA struck DOWN as
unconstitutional ... which steps do NOT involve the legislative or
executive branches, as everyone knows.

DOMA has been around since 1996, and here's been same-sex marriage
to
test it with since 2004. What's holding things up?



I guess you didn't bother to read my posts from two hours
before you posted the above.

You explained in detail why no test cases have launched?