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

"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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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