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

Francis A. Miniter wrote:

Still wrong. See my post of a few minutes ago.

And my reply to that.

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.

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 do not
affect marital status? Do you think the Supreme Court did
not understand that the underlying question was the ability
of any state to affect marital status of a person and have
that recognized in the rest of the states???? Before you
answer so quickly, you should have read the cases I cited.
For instance, Williams v. North Carolina, 317 U. S. 287 at
298-299:

"Divorce decrees are more than just in personam judgments.
They involve the marital status of the parties. Domicil
creates a relationship to the state which is adequate for
numerous exercises of state power. . . . Each state as a
sovereign has a rightful and legitimate concern in the
marital status of persons domiciled within its borders."

And again at 301:

"Certainly if decrees of a state altering the marital status
of its domiciliaries are not valid throughout the Union even
though the requirements of procedural due process are wholly
met, a rule would be fostered which could not help but bring
'considerable disaster to innocent persons' . . . ."

The Supreme Court knew exactly what it was affecting.

Really, read first, then post.


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.


You have wholly missed the point and that is because you
refuse to actually take a few minutes and read the case.
The Lovings were prosecuted under § 20-58 of the Virginia Code:

"Leaving State to evade law. -- If any white person and
colored person shall go out of this State, for the purpose
of being married, and with the intention of returning, and
be married out of it, and afterwards return to and reside in
it, cohabiting as man and wife, they shall be punished as
provided in § 20-59, and the marriage shall be governed by
the same law as if it had been solemnized in this State. The
fact of their cohabitation here as man and wife shall be
evidence of their marriage."

So you see, VIRGINIA RECOGNIZED THE MARRIAGE TOOK PLACE. IT
DID NOT MAKE A g-d DIFFERENCE!!!

--
Francis A. Miniter

Oscuramente
libros, laminas, llaves
siguen mi suerte.

Jorge Luis Borges, La Cifra Haiku, 6

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.

Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting from "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeableBLINK
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.

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.



For the third (fourth?) time, _please_ read the Supreme
Court cases I cited which say the opposite of what you say.
You completely do not understand.

As to DOMA, the argument for its legitimacy comes from the
second sentence of the Full Faith and Credit Clause, which
provides "And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the
manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be
proved, and the effect thereof." Now that says _general_
laws, though, and DOMA is clearly not a general law, but one
of specific application, and it can be argued that it only
gives Congress the power to say - generally - how full faith
and credit is to be given. So, that is a double-edged sword
and many are arguing that Congress exceeded its power under
Art. IV, Sec. 1. There are also due process and equal
protection arguments against DOMA.

It takes a while for cases to get to the Supreme Court. In
the case of DOMA, while it was passed in 1996, it has only
been in the last few years that states have allowed same sex
marriages, so the issue which it addressed in advance is
much more recent. Then cases have to go first to the trial
courts, then the state or federal appeals courts, and then
to the Supremes. As it is, one federal judge has declared
DOMA unconstitutional.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lano...-marriage.html
There are cases working their way toward the Supreme Court.
One thing you should understand about Supreme Court
jurisdiction. There are cases they have to take (appeals),
and cases that they may choose to take or not take
(certiorari). Decisions from the Circuit Courts of Appeal
upholding federal laws are in the latter category. Often,
the Supremes use that power to decline cases until the
various circuits have had time to make a number of
conflicting decisions. The reason? So that the Supremes
get to better understand the issues before they have to
decide. They do not have that liberty if the circuit court
of appeals declares the federal law unconstitutional.

--
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:
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.


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.

:Look. Show me a place where a state was forced to recognize a
marriage as legal because of FFaC and we'll talk. Oh, and if you'd
like to explain why FFaC doesn't make DOMA facially unconstitutional,
I'd be interested in that too.

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.


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. Even if the issue of full faith and
credit had been before it, the Supremes would not have had
to decide that issue. They had more than enough room under
the equal protection and due process clauses. Courts as a
matter of course will not decide issues that they do not
need to reach if other issues are decisive. Besides,
appellate courts do not argue issues that were not argued in
the courts below them. In Loving, the decision of the
Virginia Supreme Court was that the state law did not
violate equal protection. The ACLU had brought the Virginia
state appeal on that ground. They wanted to show that race
based restrictions on marriage were unconstitutional under
the equal protection clause. Using the full faith and
credit clause would not have achieved that. So, the Supreme
Court could not have ruled on an issue that was not argued
either below or in the Supreme Court itself.


:Look. Show me a place where a state was forced to recognize a
marriage as legal because of FFaC and we'll talk. Oh, and if you'd
like to explain why FFaC doesn't make DOMA facially unconstitutional,
I'd be interested in that too.


Why do you think Williams came up? What do you think the
court had in mind in the quote from page 301? Did you
bother to read it before you snipped it? For the last time,
do your assigned homework before you post.


--
Francis A. Miniter

Oscuramente
libros, laminas, llaves
siguen mi suerte.

Jorge Luis Borges, La Cifra Haiku, 6

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. That is the simplest way to attack
it. the FF&C argument only comes up in situations involving
two states and the person challenging the law. You will
notice that the Texas judge did not use DOMA to avoid the
divorce issue. Now it is possible that the appeal to be
taken by the Texas Attorney-General will bring DOMA into the
picture, but I do not know if it was so argued in the trial
court and that could limit the appealability of that issue
in the higher courts.

--
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:

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.



For the third (fourth?) time, _please_ read the Supreme
Court cases I cited which say the opposite of what you say.
You completely do not understand.

If I'm wrong, point out where FFaC has been used to force a state to
recognize a marriage.

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?