Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: fwdude
Two problems I see even if Obergefell gets overturned:

1. The "full faith and credit" clause could be used to force states with laws against gay "marriage" to honor gay "marriages" consummated in states that allow gay "marriage".

2. Corporations are generally in favor of federalization of all laws so that laws in one state are the same as in every other state. They wouldn't want a situation where they would like to move an important employee from an office in a gay friendly state to an office in a normal state if the gay employee is "married". They will fund all efforts to put support for gay "marriage" into law and will use boycotts, etc. to discourage states from enacting or re-enacting laws that favor traditional marriage.

4 posted on 04/25/2024 2:46:57 PM PDT by who_would_fardels_bear (Kafka was an optimist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]


To: who_would_fardels_bear

“ 1. The “full faith and credit” clause could be used to force states with laws against gay “marriage” to honor gay “marriages” consummated in states that allow gay “marriage.”

Why hasn’t someone based a lawsuit like that over CCLs?

L


7 posted on 04/25/2024 2:54:53 PM PDT by Lurker ( Peaceful coexistence with the Left is not possible. Stop pretending that it is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

To: who_would_fardels_bear
Item #1 wouldn’t be a problem. If two mutants were “married” in New York and moved to Kentucky, then Kentucky might recognize their New York “marriage” in name only but would extend no Kentucky jurisdiction over it. This came up even before the Obergefell case in some states. There were a few cases in the news where a scenario like this played out, and then the mutant couple tried to get divorced in the second state. If I remember correctly, the second state was able to reject their divorce case on the grounds that they didn’t consider the couple “married” in the first place.

There’s no reason for states to even be involved in marriages at all. All those relationships could be covered under a state’s contract laws.

8 posted on 04/25/2024 2:57:55 PM PDT by Alberta's Child (If something in government doesn’t make sense, you can be sure it makes dollars.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

To: who_would_fardels_bear

That was already done when Congress passed the Respect for Marriage Act. Should Obergefell be reversed, any couple legally married in the state or country in which it was done will be legally married in their home state, regardless of whether or not that state has such a law on their books.


13 posted on 04/25/2024 3:22:42 PM PDT by Coronal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

To: who_would_fardels_bear

Ah, the famous Intra-state transfer of illegal goods or activities.... Good put those corporations out of business for pushing across state borders their illegal activities from adjacent or nearby states.


22 posted on 04/26/2024 4:07:46 AM PDT by Jumper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson