3 ms·

> Marriage is deeply cultural. Marriage is a legal contract, and it is the most universally recognized cross-cultural legal contract. It doesn't matter how you

> Marriage is deeply cultural. Marriage is a legal contract, and it is the most universally recognized cross-cultural legal contract. It doesn't matter how you got married, whatever ceremony was performed or not, whatever bureaucratic process was performed or not, your marriage is recognized worldwide. Unless it's a same-sex marriage, because then it suddenly becomes deeply cultural or whatever. That's bullshit.

einhverfr 14y ago
I don't accept any of that btw, though there are certain exceptions. Certainly if you were right on the face of what you wrote, polygamous marriages conducted overseas would be valid in the US, which they aren't. I don't think that marriage is the same in India as it is in Japan or the US. I don't think marriage is the same in Morocco as it is in Spain. I don't want to meddle in these. The exception though has to do with some forms of recognition in the US as people move about the country. If a same-sex couple is married in Massachusetts and they later move to Arkansas, I think it's fairly clear on the basis of what scant legal authority we have, that the Arkansas legal tradition determines whether they are still married. Andrew Koppelman suggests (and makes a good case for the idea that) the general trend is towards more recognition. However, if the family is merely visiting Arkansas and not moving there, then I think the analysis is very different and we have over a hundred and fifty years of jurisprudence which says that marriages don't wink in or out of existence when people travel around the country, and that rather the venue which controls is the venue of residency. Even pre-Loving v. Virginia I am not aware of a single case where miscegenation laws were applied against a mixed race couple who were merely travelling through a state or present to conduct business. The two cases I know of which involved relocating into states which banned miscegenation went different directions at the state supreme court level, and ex parte Kinney (same facts as Loving but about a hundred years earlier) included dicta that while Virginia could criminalize marriages of residents, they could not do so to out of state residents who were merely visiting. To hold that a marriage of a gay couple in Massachusetts would not need to be recognized in Utah while they are visiting Arches National Park doesn't work with our system of government. Similarly I would be entirely be supportive of a treaty that said that tourists' marriages would be recognized wherever they go. If you are a gay couple married in Massachusetts I think you have a reasonable expectation that Singapore will honor your marriage. I don't think you have a reasonable expectation that Singapore will alter their laws to let their residents follow in your footsteps.

einhverfr 14y ago

I don't accept any of that btw, though there are certain exceptions. Certainly if you were right on the face of what you wrote, polygamous marriages conducted overseas would be valid in the US, which they aren't. I don't think that marriage is the same in India as it is in Japan or the US. I don't think marriage is the same in Morocco as it is in Spain. I don't want to meddle in these. The exception though has to do with some forms of recognition in the US as people move about the country. If a same-sex couple is married in Massachusetts and they later move to Arkansas, I think it's fairly clear on the basis of what scant legal authority we have, that the Arkansas legal tradition determines whether they are still married. Andrew Koppelman suggests (and makes a good case for the idea that) the general trend is towards more recognition. However, if the family is merely visiting Arkansas and not moving there, then I think the analysis is very different and we have over a hundred and fifty years of jurisprudence which says that marriages don't wink in or out of existence when people travel around the country, and that rather the venue which controls is the venue of residency. Even pre-Loving v. Virginia I am not aware of a single case where miscegenation laws were applied against a mixed race couple who were merely travelling through a state or present to conduct business. The two cases I know of which involved relocating into states which banned miscegenation went different directions at the state supreme court level, and ex parte Kinney (same facts as Loving but about a hundred years earlier) included dicta that while Virginia could criminalize marriages of residents, they could not do so to out of state residents who were merely visiting. To hold that a marriage of a gay couple in Massachusetts would not need to be recognized in Utah while they are visiting Arches National Park doesn't work with our system of government. Similarly I would be entirely be supportive of a treaty that said that tourists' marriages would be recognized wherever they go. If you are a gay couple married in Massachusetts I think you have a reasonable expectation that Singapore will honor your marriage. I don't think you have a reasonable expectation that Singapore will alter their laws to let their residents follow in your footsteps.