Really disappointed in the Church's latest political adventure

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by The_Tick

So I think I am starting to understand.

If we ammend the California state statute, then illegal means illegal right?


Another hypothetical...

California Gay couple goes to Oregon where it is allowed. Gets married there and then returns home. It still wouldn't be recognized in California because it is illegal here correct?

Thanks the info.

I don't know the answer to that offhand. It's a complicated question in my view. If there's an easy answer I'm just not aware of it. I'm confident the courts would work it out for better or worse. There's a body of rules called conflicts of laws whereby courts decide whether to apply one state or another's laws in the event of a dispute. This type of thing happens all the time. For example, a couple gets married in a community property state such as Washington and five years later they move to Utah and the year after that get a divorce. These types of messy problems are what the legal process is all about to a large extent. Sometimes the states get together and pass model statutes to try to anticipate the problems. The UCC is an example.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by The_Tick

So I think I am starting to understand.

If we ammend the California state statute, then illegal means illegal right?


Another hypothetical...

California Gay couple goes to Oregon where it is allowed. Gets married there and then returns home. It still wouldn't be recognized in California because it is illegal here correct?

Thanks the info.

And I'll add that these types of messy fact patterns are the price of a federalist system, not something that comes up in a place with provinces that are little more than lines on a map.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

I don't know the answer to that offhand. It's a complicated question in my view. If there's an easy answer I'm just not aware of it. I'm confident the courts would work it out for better or worse. There's a body of rules call conflicts of laws whereby courts decide whether to apply one state or another's laws in the event of a dispute. This type of thing happens all the time. For example, a couple gets married in a community property state such as Washington and five years later they move to Utah and the year after that get a divorce. These types of messy problems are what the legal process is all about to a large extent. Sometimes the states get together and pass model statutes to try to anticipate the problems. The UCC is an example.

He is correct. The marriage would not be recognized by California. This already happens regularly with other kinds of marriages. For example, in some states you can marry a first cousin. In others, you can't. Those states that prohibit such marriages do not recognize the marriage of first cousins, and there is no constitutional mechanism requiring them to do so (which is why a federal amendment is not only wrong, but superfluous).

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by The_Tick

Another hypothetical...

California Gay couple goes to Oregon where it is allowed. Gets married there and then returns home. It still wouldn't be recognized in California because it is illegal here correct?

Thanks the info.

This was already addressed a couple of years ago with the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). States are not required to recognize marriages performed in other states if they don't want to.

[The_Tick]

Originally Posted by homeboy

This was already addressed a couple of years ago with the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). States are not required to recognize marriages performed in other states if they don't want to.

And I like that.

But how did the jack ball of a mayor in SF justify going against the voting populace in California?

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by The_Tick

And I like that.

But how did the jack ball of a mayor in SF justify going against the voting populace in California?

He broke the law. The Governor decided not to prosecute him largely because he agreed with the mayor's position.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by The_Tick

And I like that.

But how did the jack ball of a mayor in SF justify going against the voting populace in California?

It was political grandstanding that was wildly popular among his own constituentcy and which he knew was illegal. He justified it on the grounds that it shouldn't be illegal and he surmised it would not hurt but only help him locally and would get his name out there nationally.

[MikeWaters]

SU, you are missing the purpose of this whole amendment thing.

1. Church puts out statement about amendment.
2. Harry Reid votes against it.
3. Romney gets to say, "see? Mormon politicians aren't beholden to the hierarchy."

As smart as you are, I'm surprised you couldn't see through the smoke and mirrors.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

SU, you are missing the purpose of this whole amendment thing.

1. Church puts out statement about amendment.
2. Harry Reid votes against it.
3. Romney gets to say, "see? Mormon politicians aren't beholden to the hierarchy."

As smart as you are, I'm surprised you couldn't see through the smoke and mirrors.

I'm chastened. Now I see the Jesuits have nothing on the Mormons insofar as political savvy is concerned.

[Archaea]

Actually, Church was advised DOMA might not withstand constitutional scrutiney and if it is struck down, then the FFC provision will require marriages repugnant in some jurisdictions to be recognized otherwise. They also want to forestall polygamy with it.

OTH, perhaps others liked Mike's idea.