Gays have no constitutional right to recognition of their marriages by other states:

[Badgerman]

The quote is from a link to the DU topic@
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5833429&mesg_id=5833429

Gays have no constitutional right to marriage, or recognition of their marriages by other states:

Plaintiffs are married, and their challenge to the federal Defense of Marriage Act ("DOMA") poses a different set of questions: whether by virtue of their marital status they are constitutionally entitled to acknowledgment of their union by States that do not recognize same-sex marriage, and whether they are similarly entitled to certain federal benefits. Under the law binding on this Court, the answer to these questions must be no.

Read more: http://www.americablog.com/2009/06/obama-justice-depart...

Here is the pit our fearless leader and proclaimed Constitutional lawyer cum professor is finding himself. The USSupCt has ruled from its inception that marriages are the bailiwick of the states. Take Utah for example, one of the conditions that had to be met before they would be allowed statehood was to make polygamy illegal. Why? Because the other states would have to recognize legal marriages made in Utah. The fact is that this issue may bring on a minor constitutional crisis and result in a constitutional amendment.

It is one, probably the prime reason that the term 'civil union' is pushed so hard by both moderate repugs, and Dems. But that isn't a solution either, it grants tax relief (such as it is for married couples), Social Security survivor benifits and some other smaller crap...BUT even those tokens will require the Congress to pass laws declaring and defining a 'civil union'.

NONE OF WHICH makes the constitutional issue of the states right to regulate marriage within its borders. Which brings us right back to the Utah issue of over a hundred years ago.

I voted for Obama, although I knew he was not politically well connected, lacked meaningful experience, and had some really really close interaction with some seedy small time political racketeers, because of his education and his academic studies of Constitutional Law. As it turns out he is not a Wm O. Douglas, nor Cardoza, but may just possibly be more along the lines of you fill in the blank ________. One thing is not just apparent but is demonstrable fact, he is more an ordinary lawyer, than a constitutional scholar, and I say that because he has chosen to defend the powers of the Executive Branch, which were literally taken forcibly by Bush/Cheney. You cannot deny this, for in every instance where an executive order or an executive policy has favored the Executive Branch over the Legislative or the Judiciary, Obama has landed squarely on the side of the Cheney/Bush dung heap. Whaich all adds upto one thing...don't look for anything but roadblocks from the Whitehouse on the issue of same sex marriage.

[Badgerman]

1. For those who might be confused by the topic line...I AM FOR SAME SEX MARRIAGES! n/t

[ThomCat]

2. It is outrageous that bigotry will be more important that the "Full faith

and credit" clause of the constitution. They are going to create a precedent that states no longer have to honor the laws of other states because honoring bigotry is more important. :grr:

[Badgerman]

3. Pretty much sums it up...and their is NO assurance that the USSupCt will overtuen them.

[OmahaBlueDog]

4. In light of this, I have questions

I live in Omaha. Same sex marriage is not legal in Nebraska. Over the bridge in Concil Bluffs, Iowa, however, it is legal. As one would expect, it is very common for people to live on one side of the border and work on the other.

As a straight, married male, it is simply a given that my marriage is recognized in all 50 states. So if I get into a car wreck in Iowa, my wife makes medical decisions if I'm incapacitated. Suppose the reverse is true: suppose a member of a same-sex Iowa marriage is hurt in a car wreck in Nebraska and is taken to Creighton Med in Omaha. Will they recognize the marriage? Will they accept medical insurance if it is in the spouse's name?

What about spousal benefits? If I worked in Iowa, as a straight male, there'd be no question about extending benefits to my wife at our home in Nebraska. How will this work for same sex couples residing in Council Bluffs if one of them works in Omaha or Lincoln?

How is this working in the Northeastern states, where this has been the law for several years now?

[kenny blankenship]

5. Apparently the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution applies to everyone

EXCEPT gay people. I never knew that.

Thanks Obama! I am so fucking glad we elected a Constitutional Scholar to be President. We'd be so much worse off with some loser who doesn't know the Constitution. Hell, before Constitutional Scholar became President, I even thought the President was obliged to follow the law. Time and time again I lambasted George W. Bush for acting like a dictator, ignoring laws he didn't want to enforce, breaking laws that got in his way. But the whole time he was above the law because of his office. Whooosh! Right over my head. I didn't get that until Obama showed me that not only could Bush get away with shredding the Constitution and crapping on international law, Obama could do the exact same things, by refusing to obey his legal duty to uphold the laws broken by his predecessor. If the President does it it can't be illegal was the operant clause the whole fucking time, but not being a Constitutional Scholar, I thought that was some quasi fascist Nixonian bullshit.