4 ms·

This act does not ensure you can get a same-sex marriage in every state[1], it only ensures that if you get a same-sex marriage in a state where it is legal tha

This act does not ensure you can get a same-sex marriage in every state[1], it only ensures that if you get a same-sex marriage in a state where it is legal that it will be recognized by other states (and the feds). Pretty weak tbh. [1] https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8404/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8404...

epmatsw 4y ago
And yet the majority of Republicans were still unwilling to pass it.
metadat 4y ago
Better than nothing. Which is what we had previously. Don't let perfect be the enemy of incremental improvement.
- jfengel 4y ago
  It's not better than nothing. This right was already guaranteed by the Full Faith and Credit Clause. Of course the Full Faith and Credit Clause means exactly what Thomas and Alito want it to mean. But they can just as well declare this bill to be unconstitutional. And when they do, you have no alternative, since they can't be overruled -- shy of a President sending in troops.
  - AnimalMuppet 4y ago
    1. I'm not sure the Full Faith and Credit Clause works here. For example, say some state (Louisiana? Utah?) legalized marriages of adults to eight-year-olds. And such a "couple" moves out of state. Does the state have to recognize that "marriage", just because of the Full Faith and Credit Clause? I kind of doubt it. For that matter, before Obergefell, some states had recognized same-sex marriage, and nobody said that the Full Faith and Credit Clause required other states to recognize them. 2. "A president sending in troops" is going to overrule a lot more than one Supreme Court decision. It's, probably, the end of the United States and the start of a civil war... if the military obeys such an order, which they should not.
    - jfengel 4y ago
      When it comes to "marriages to eight-year-olds" you get into the fact that minors have very limited autonomy. The overriding law would (presumably) be that it's not legal in any state, even the one that permitted it. But of course I'm just guessing there; the Supreme Court makes up whatever rule it wants. The Full Faith and Credit Clause was widely discussed before Obergefell. Many people went to Massachusetts to get married when they were the only state, and were pushing precedents that it meant they were married in every state. Test cases often involved divorce. As for point #2, yes, I concur. That's my point: the Supreme Court has absolute authority, and nothing shy of destroying the Constitution can override it.

epmatsw 4y ago

And yet the majority of Republicans were still unwilling to pass it.

metadat 4y ago

Better than nothing. Which is what we had previously. Don't let perfect be the enemy of incremental improvement.

jfengel 4y ago
It's not better than nothing. This right was already guaranteed by the Full Faith and Credit Clause. Of course the Full Faith and Credit Clause means exactly what Thomas and Alito want it to mean. But they can just as well declare this bill to be unconstitutional. And when they do, you have no alternative, since they can't be overruled -- shy of a President sending in troops.
- AnimalMuppet 4y ago
  1. I'm not sure the Full Faith and Credit Clause works here. For example, say some state (Louisiana? Utah?) legalized marriages of adults to eight-year-olds. And such a "couple" moves out of state. Does the state have to recognize that "marriage", just because of the Full Faith and Credit Clause? I kind of doubt it. For that matter, before Obergefell, some states had recognized same-sex marriage, and nobody said that the Full Faith and Credit Clause required other states to recognize them. 2. "A president sending in troops" is going to overrule a lot more than one Supreme Court decision. It's, probably, the end of the United States and the start of a civil war... if the military obeys such an order, which they should not.
  - jfengel 4y ago
    When it comes to "marriages to eight-year-olds" you get into the fact that minors have very limited autonomy. The overriding law would (presumably) be that it's not legal in any state, even the one that permitted it. But of course I'm just guessing there; the Supreme Court makes up whatever rule it wants. The Full Faith and Credit Clause was widely discussed before Obergefell. Many people went to Massachusetts to get married when they were the only state, and were pushing precedents that it meant they were married in every state. Test cases often involved divorce. As for point #2, yes, I concur. That's my point: the Supreme Court has absolute authority, and nothing shy of destroying the Constitution can override it.