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

Francis A. Miniter wrote:

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.

"The fly in the ointment was that nobody bothered to check whether the
Full Faith and Credit Clause had actually ever been read to require
one state to recognize another state's marriages. It hasn't." -- Lea
Brilmayer, Howard M. Holtzmann Professor of International Law at Yale

http://www.law.yale.edu/news/4174.htm

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.

(Or, as another post in the thread notes, amend b) to "nobody has actually
FINISHED taking the steps needed to...")

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.

Butch Malahide wrote:
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?

If we could toss people out of Congress, or even somewhat inconvenience them,
for breaking oaths, it'd be a far different body. (Yeah yeah, technically
there's impeachment proceedings. Good luck even getting one -started-.)

State legislatures and city councils have even fewer controls on them
directly...

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.

Francis A. Miniter wrote:
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,

Until tested in a case and controversy, it is not that easy
to determine constitutionality of a law (or proposed law).

_Exactly_. So trying to have some sort of "wait wait don't tell me, that
violates ... section Q of the Constitution, you can't put it up for debate"
rules in with the rules of order Would Not End Well.

That is why the Supreme Court exists and that is why the
decision in Marbury v. Madison is what it is.

Yep.

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.

Well, more "needs tweaking", to 'nobody has actually _finished_ taking the
steps needed'. I forgot that several had started along the path already.

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:
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.

"The fly in the ointment was that nobody bothered to check whether the
Full Faith and Credit Clause had actually ever been read to require
one state to recognize another state's marriages. It hasn't." -- Lea
Brilmayer, Howard M. Holtzmann Professor of International Law at Yale

http://www.law.yale.edu/news/4174.htm


Well, at least you cited something for once. The article, I
note, is by a professor of international law, not
constitutional law. More important, though, is that the
author fails to cite a single case regarding the FF&C clause
and marital status. She does not even try to distinguish
Williams, for instance, even though the court clearly stated
it was dealing with all aspects of marital status. As I
quoted from the Supreme Court previously:

"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' . . . ."
Williams v. North Carolina, 317 U. S. 287 at 301.

Frankly, the words of the Supreme Court carry far more
weight than a short opinion article that does not review the
case law.

West's lists lists about 50+ pages of case headnotes on the
application of FF&C to matrimonial and family relations
cases. There is no question but that FF&C applies to marital
law. You cannot pretend that there is some aspect of it
that can be carved out from this broad jurisdiction. Your
arguments make no sense in the real world of law. By the
way, FF&C has even been applied to force a state which does
not recognize common law marriage (Louisiana) to give effect
to such a marriage validly contracted in another state.
Parish v. Minvielle, 207 So.2d 684 (La.App. 1969). That is
right on point for the same sex marriage issue.


--
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:
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.

"The fly in the ointment was that nobody bothered to check whether
the Full Faith and Credit Clause had actually ever been read to
require one state to recognize another state's marriages. It
hasn't." -- Lea Brilmayer, Howard M. Holtzmann Professor of
International Law at Yale http://www.law.yale.edu/news/4174.htm


Well, at least you cited something for once.

Yeah, I thought you'd prefer argument from authority to mere logic.

Mike Schilling wrote:
Francis A. Miniter wrote:
Mike Schilling wrote:
Francis A. Miniter wrote:
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.
"The fly in the ointment was that nobody bothered to check whether
the Full Faith and Credit Clause had actually ever been read to
require one state to recognize another state's marriages. It
hasn't." -- Lea Brilmayer, Howard M. Holtzmann Professor of
International Law at Yale http://www.law.yale.edu/news/4174.htm


Well, at least you cited something for once.

Yeah, I thought you'd prefer argument from authority to mere logic.


The law may or may not be logical, but you have to know the
difference. And a professor's whim is not the law. What
the courts say is the law. And that you have not bothered
yet to examine. That is nothing but willful ignorance,
especially when you have been even told where to look and
been given excerpts from the text.

In any case, it is you who is not being logical. As I
pointed out before, the FF&C Clause contains no exceptions.
It is absolute in its application. You may or may not
like that, but the purpose of the constitutional provision
was "to alter the status of the several states as
independent foreign sovereignties, each free to ignore
obligations created under the laws or by the judicial
proceedings of the others, and to make them integral parts
of a single nation throughout which a remedy upon a just
obligation might be demanded as of right, irrespective of
the state of its origin." Milwaukee County v. M.E. White
Co., 296 U.S. 268, 276-77 (1935).

Given that rationale, logic demands that there is no
individual aspect of marital law that can possibly be
excluded from its scope.

--
Francis A. Miniter

Oscuramente
libros, laminas, llaves
siguen mi suerte.

Jorge Luis Borges, La Cifra Haiku, 6

Francis A. Miniter wrote:


In any case, it is you who is not being logical. As I
pointed out before, the FF&C Clause contains no exceptions.
It is absolute in its application. You may or may not
like that,

What does "like that" have to do with anything? I have no agenda
here.

Given that rationale, logic demands that there is no
individual aspect of marital law that can possibly be
excluded from its scope.

Yet as the professor points out, it hasn't been applied to marriage,
as opposed to divorce. (Your point about common-law marruiage appears
to be an exception.) That's a fact, whether you like it or not.

Mike Schilling wrote:
Francis A. Miniter wrote:

In any case, it is you who is not being logical. As I
pointed out before, the FF&C Clause contains no exceptions.
It is absolute in its application. You may or may not
like that,

What does "like that" have to do with anything? I have no agenda
here.

Given that rationale, logic demands that there is no
individual aspect of marital law that can possibly be
excluded from its scope.

Yet as the professor points out, it hasn't been applied to marriage,
as opposed to divorce. (Your point about common-law marruiage appears
to be an exception.) That's a fact, whether you like it or not.


Your ability to resist reality is truly impressive.

--
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:

In any case, it is you who is not being logical. As I
pointed out before, the FF&C Clause contains no exceptions.
It is absolute in its application. You may or may not
like that,

What does "like that" have to do with anything? I have no agenda
here.

Given that rationale, logic demands that there is no
individual aspect of marital law that can possibly be
excluded from its scope.

Yet as the professor points out, it hasn't been applied to
marriage,
as opposed to divorce. (Your point about common-law marruiage
appears to be an exception.) That's a fact, whether you like it or
not.
Your ability to resist reality is truly impressive.

I'll ask for about the fourth time: show a case where FFaC was used to
force a state to recognize a marriage. Your point about common-law
marriage was one, I'll give you that. Any others?