If DOMA is replealed, wouldn't states need to recognize marriages from other states?

[CreekDog]

like they do for driver's licenses and so forth?

it's DOMA that allows them not to. or not?

answers?

[HockeyMom]

1. This going to have to go to the SC

and the issue will not be the validity of Gay Marriage, but the Full Faith and Credit Act, based on Loving v. Virginia. You cannot have a hodge podge of marriages being recognized in some states but not others.

[racaulk]

2. That is my understanding, yes.

DOMA prevents the Federal and other state governments from recognizing as valid marriage equality laws in states where they have been enacted. If DOMA is repealed, gays and lesbians that are legally married in one state would have to be recognized as such by the rest of the nation.

[loyalsister]

13. Unless there is a law preventing the state from recognizing

I'm not sure about other states, but I know that the MO marriage discrimination law was written specifically to exclude recognition of any same sex marriage no matter where it originated. Until a federal law overrides or the SC rules that law is unconstitutional, it is my understanding that it can be enforced.

[racaulk]

14. Yes, I believe you are correct.

Thank you for the reminder, I forgot about that piece of it. I think a positive affirmation of marriage equality from the SCOTUS is the only thing that will put this to bed once and for all.

[Kaleva]

3. No.

Michigan, long before DOMA, doesn't recognize common law marriages, even though such a marriage is considered to be valid in other states. And there are states that have a higher minimum age then others. Thus they do not recognize such marriages, altough valid elsewhere.

Edit: The way I understand it, DOMA prevents the federal govt. from recognizing such marriages even if considered to be valid in a particular state. There would be no survivor benefits granted to the spouse of the deceased in a gay marriage.

[FreeState]

15. It also provides that states don't have too

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act

Section 2. Powers reserved to the states
No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.

Section 3. Definition of marriage
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.

[DevonRex]

4. No. States have never been obligated to recognize marriages from other states

unless there has been some sort of legal judgment. That's where the "full faith and credit clause" comes in. DOMA actually does away with that even, which puts in jeopardy even all legal judgments that have arisen in same sex marriages in other states.

[shcrane71]

5. Are you saying that the end of DOMA would possibly

end marriage equality in more progressive states?

[DevonRex]

8. LOL, NOOO.

I'm saying that ending DOMA does not force states to recognize gay marriage or any other marriage. They never have been required to recognize marriages from other states. They normally DO. One way to ensure that a marriage is recognized is to have some sort of legal judgment on the books. That is because of the full faith and credit clause in the constitution.

One state is required to recognize a legal judgment made in another state regarding money, property, etc. So if there is a legal judgment in one state, another state has to recognize it. So, in a marriage for example, if one person is awarded something from the other in State A, then State B is more LIKELY to recognize the marriage itself.

But DOMA actually does away with that part of of the full faith and credit clause, saying that it does NOT apply to marriages.

It's complicated, I know.

[shcrane71]

11. Whew... Thanks for spelling that out for me.

I've heard that other states normally DO recognize marriages or judgements from other states. But, I needed to clarify. I'm still hopeful that DOMA will get repealed and all these bigoted marriage amendments will start falling one by one.

[DevonRex]

12. They will, thanks to some really good legal maneuvering.

It won't be a sudden thing, more like dominoes falling one by one like you said. I think people believed it would all happen overnight, not realizing that every state law was different and would have to be fought differently.

Another thing is that the states really have been the ones to be in the marriage business from the beginning. Very, very unfortunate but true. So what it means is that they get the first whack at it and the Federal Govt has to come along behind and clean up their messes.

[Pab Sungenis]

7. Until Loving v. Virginia.

That set a very high bar for marriage discrimination. One that same-sex marriage opponents can't justify.

DOMA goes down first, then every state constitutional amendment goes down shortly after. The legislation might be able to stay, but any clauses preventing the recognition of marriages elsewhere will be null and void.

[DevonRex]

9. This Huffington Post piece is pretty good on it.

You have a pretty good handle on it, though. The full faith thing is very important, and that's why repeal of DOMA is vital.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tobias-barrington-wolff/doma-repeal-and-the-truth_b_905484.html

[DevonRex]

10. Oh, and did you SEE

that bit of legal genius written by Boies and damn, what's his name who overturned Prop 8 in California? The guy who's really conservative? I'm brain dead now.

Anyway, talking about the INTENSE scrutiny that the Justice Department would be applying when looking at marriages, as signaled by their declaring section 3 of DOMA unconstitutional? OMG it was a thing of absolute beauty.

This is gonna be so good. The thing is, I'm so very, very sorry it's taking so long and that your actual lives are in the balance here. OTOH, being able to actually WITNESS it is going to be wonderful. I was too young during the civil rights era to understand. But I'm not too young now.

[Pab Sungenis]

6. Ding ding ding ding ding

You win one internet.