blaen99

iTrader: (6)

TL;DR:

This is like Ohio saying "Well, this guy was convicted of murder in ANOTHER state, but not here, so he's no longer a murderer and is free!" and the courts going


It's absolutely not like Ohio saying "Well, because of (X) in another state, it has to even apply here, even disregarding (Y) in our state!".

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

So OH will "recognize" the fact that two people are married in another state, but they don't have to provide them any of the legal benefits/privileges that come with being married in the state of OH.

So I can't get my florist and business licenses here in VA and expect to move to OH and open up a florist shop, but they will still recognize me as a businessman in VA?

Savington

iTrader: (31)

This. Thank you.

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

No, no it's not.

On the other hand, it IS like getting a driver's license there in VA, then expecting to be able to take a vacation over in OH and drive there.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

So what does it matter in the case of marriage? What is the gain to non-oh married couples in regards to being in oh? And what's the difference between a States marraige license vs a business licnese or electrician license?

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

Precisely. This is, in fact, the exact sort of scenario which the Full Faith and Credit Clause (Article IV, section 1 of the US Constitution) was put in place to protect against. You cannot escape from a criminal conviction or civil judgement simply by fleeing across state lines. If a Virginia court finds you liable for a tort and grants me a judgement against you, I can still enforce that judgement even if you move to Alabama.

And if you are convicted of buggery in Alabama and subsequently escape from custody and flee to Virginia, the police and courts in Virginia will happily detain you and extradite you to Alabama, even though buggery is not merely encouraged in Virginia, but actually protected as a form of artistic expression by the state charter.





This is an interesting question. I'm not aware that it's been tested in the courts, mostly because business licensing has, as a matter of historical precedent within the common law, been considered to be a non-transferable attribute.

If it were tested in the courts, it would probably come down to whether the court deemed the right to operate a flower-selling business to be a 14th Amendment protected liberty, in the sense of "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."





^ This, exactly.

Or, even more specifically, consider the following:

In the state of South Dakota, one can obtain a regular drivers license at the age of 14 years and 3 months. In the state of New Jersey, one must be 17 years old in order to obtain a regular drivers license, and 16 years old even to obtain a leaner's permit.

If a person aged 15 years old, with a valid South Dakota license, drives into New Jersey, their license will be recognized as valid by the New Jersey courts and law enforcement, and they will be permitted to drive upon the highways in New Jersey, provided that they obey all relevant New Jersey traffic laws.

This does not in any way encroach upon New Jersey's sovereignty insofar as its right to set and enforce its own standards for granting drivers licenses. Recognition of a 15 year old's South Dakota license does not mean that New Jersey may still elect not to grant drivers licenses to those under the age of 17.







Mostly tradition and historical precedent. Kind of like the laws in many states which permit men to expose their nipples in public without restriction, but criminalize this behavior in women outside of certain rigidly-defined circumstances.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

Okay so the ruling is like allowing someone that obtains a state license at the age of 14, drive in a state where the legal age is 16, and giving them all the privileges of the 16 year old even though it's explicitly illegal otherwise for a citizen of that state to do the same*.

But it's not like someone from a state where the legal drinking age is 18 being allowed to go to the state where the legal drinking age is 21 and expecting to being served alcohol. And similarly, it's not like being from one state that allows the legal sale/consumption of marijuana and being able to sell/buy/consume pot in OH. Also similarly, one from out of state cannot drive through VA using a radar detector, even though it's perfectly legal in other states?

And it's also not like allowing someone with a state license to practice law in VA being able to practice law in OH? Or medicine, barbery, real estate, asbestos removal, auctioneering, etc?

And not like obtaining a casino license in the state of Nevada and then opening a casino in OH? Or a brothel license in Reno, NV, and opening up a bunny ranch in Columiba, Oh?

And it's not like getting my Virginia Department of Game and Inland fishing license and being able to fish in OH?

And it's not like getting a state liquor license and being able to sell/serve liquor in OH?

And it's not like getting a state concealed handgun license and being able to conceal in OH?

And it's not like obtaining a state/city/county license to own/house animals, and moving to OH and still being able for the animals to reside with you, even if it violates an OH law?














*There are plenty of states that actually do not honor the driver's licenses of underaged drivers. NJ won't accept a NY learner's permit. However, CA will at least allow these drivers for a maximum of 10 days in their state.

But if the 14 year old actually moves to the state, then the 14yo must obtain the driver license of that state and now must wait until he/she is 16 in order to do so.

So using that as an example, should we expect that out-of-state people that obtain marriage licenses of a different state who now are citizens of OH follow OH laws and obtain a marriage license from OH when they are of legal capacity? Just like in all the other instances we determined it was not like; where licenses between you and the state do not transfer to a different state?

fooger03

iTrader: (2)

Consider a continuum with "certain unalienable rights" on one end, and "legally granted privledges" on the other end.

The general consensus of the courts is that marriage is a "certain unalienable right".

All of those other things you listed are closer to the "privledges" side of the spectrum. Some of them more "privledge" than others. As perceptions of the majority change, some "rights" tip over to the "privledge" side of the spectrum, and some "privledges" tip over to the "rights" side of the spectrum.

Consider "concealed carry" - originally conceived as a right, and then long perceived to be a "privledge", the perception of the majority is more and more leaning towards it as a "right" again. Within the next decade, concealed carry licenses will probably be mandated as a full faith and credit item.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

no it's not. and no they dont.

Everything having to do with a marriage license has everything to do with legalities and privileges.

if marriage was a certain unalienable right there would be no limitations for marriage: on the amount of people you can marry, or whom you can marry, or what you can marry, or how old you must be to marry. There also would not be fees/taxes required in order to be recognized as married in your state.

But what marriage does do is provide legal privileges, benefits, and considerations in legal matters such as: debt, taxes, insurance, powers of attorney, safeguarding property/estates, support obligations to children, wills, inheritance, adoption, legitimacy, premarital agreements, adultery, medical rights, divorce, etc.

and each state has its own set of laws/rules in who is allowed to marry and what legal priviledges you get from it.

it is most certainly, in this day and age, a legal human relationship with rights, benefits, privileges, responsibilities, and consequences, and not just an unalienable right.

If the general consensus of the courts was that it was an unalienable right, we wouldn't be in this situation. There's no one stopping any two, three, four people from having a ceremony in which they are to be married. There's no one stopping two people from being in love. from having a relationship. friendship. from sharing their lives together. But, since marriage is defined by the state, with rules and limits and laws in which the state has to intervene and act on in the court, there's a bit of an issue.

If marriage was simply a right, then the status of marriage needs to be recognized, by the state and the courts, at the exact same level as two BFFs like Shuiend and myself.

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

^ This is probably the most important and relevant sentiment which has been clearly stated in words on this entire forum at any point in its whole history.

It is, at the absolute minimum, a constitutionally-protected liberty, which puts it very near to the "inalienable rights" end of the spectrum. The Ohio court has recognized as much.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

Have they? Please show me the word marriage in the entire text of the entire Constitution. Or inalienable rights for that matter. There is a bill of rights, the last suggesting the State is granted the power in dealing with anything else not expressly delegated in the first 9.

OH still has restrictions on marriage between people below the age of 16, and between cousins, and between same sex, and by more than one partner, and many more.

If they recognized marriage as a "constitutionally-protected liberty" why would they have such limits? and need laws to define what marriage is and what benefits the persons being married get? Why do you need courts to get divorced?

What's really crazy is that in OH's own Constitution they write:

but at the same time also:

it's really weird that marriage in OH, doesn't fall under their own Bill of Rights in Article 1 as an inalienable right, but is defined in Article 15: Miscellaneous, Section 11 as a union between a man and a woman.

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

The Supreme Court has already ruled, repeatedly, that marriage is a fundamental (Read: inalienable) right.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/388/1
14 Supreme Court Cases: Marriage is a Fundamental Right | American Foundation for Equal Rights

etc. etc., this has been held since 1888 Brainy, and was found out after clicking on the first result of a google search.

Or to put it more simply, this is just the interracial marriage opponents trotting out their crap all over again for a different subject. It's all well-hashed law and should be a surprise to no one. Seriously, everything happening is a mirror image of what happened in the 1960s, which was a mirror image of what happened in the ~1920s, which was a mirror image of what happened in the ~1870s-1880s....

Seriously, when you can take an argument against something NOW, and replace a single noun in it, and get statements from as far back as the 1880s, the results are pretty obvious as to what is going to happen in the courts. We're even seeing the states rights playbook come back in almost a carbon copy of the 1960s/1920s/1880s stuff...

Here's a video quote in fact:

Recognize anything? America sees this every 2 generations like clockwork. It's pretty much the only universal event in American politics.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

Then why do people in any state, need a license in order to marry? why can't cousins marry? why can't polygamists marry? why can't gays marry? if it's a right and ruled as a right, and generally accepted as a right, why can't some people just marry?

But, also, if it was ruled that Article 15, Section 11 of the OH Constitution violated the 14th amendment, then how can any law of OH that negates some freedom/right of another state be valid under equal protection of the law?

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

If that freedom/right of another state is held to be a fundamental, or inalienable right, it will be thrown out really quickly.

There's not much more to it Brainy. States cannot make laws infringing on rights/freedoms held to be inalienable.

Also, as for incestual marriage: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cousin_...tates_by_state

So yes, if you get into an incestual marriage legally recognized by one state, another state has to recognize this. Coincidentally, this is also settled law. If you get into (X) marriage legally recognized by one state, another state has to recognize it. Your argument about "But what about (X)?!?" has nothing to do with the federal government, and solely to do with states and what they recognize as marriage.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

So the actual distinction here is that, if one state says that it's an inalienable right for its citizens to do something, then all states must also must allow this?

so cousins married is settled law, but gays married is inalienable right? really weird, seems subjective and arbitrary.


slow down cowboy, you mean:

correct?

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

I think where Brainey is getting hung up, based on his having evoked the Enumerated Powers clause, is that he feels that the state of Ohio should have the ability to make laws which violate the US Constitution and be immune to the decisions of the US Supreme Court in such matters.

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

Well, there are states where incestual marriages are allowed.

Other states must recognize this marriage.

That's all there really is to it for (insert type here) marriage. In fact, that's all there really is legally for any right held to be fundamental, or inalienable, by the supreme court.

If the supreme court held that having a florist's license was an inalienable right in the context of our marriage discussion, the same logic would apply.

Seems like it. Seriously, the only thing preventing polygamous or (insert marriage here) is state laws, not federal.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

Do the laws/freedoms of 49 other states, whose citizens are allowed to use radar detection, violate me under the US Constitution?

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

I'm not even sure where you are coming from with this at this point, Brainy? Radar detection has clearly not been held as a fundamental right by the US supreme court, nor is it mentioned in the US constitution.

Radar detection being illegal is really retarded, and quite frankly statutes making it illegal have regularly been smacked down in courts. IIRC, Virginia is the only state that still makes them illegal, and the reasoning for it remaining illegal involves substantial judicial shennanigans by the state (Not federal) gov't.

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

Indeed. Just because a state makes a law that says "This is legal / illegal" does not mean that this law is actually just, or that it will not eventually be struck down by the courts.

In the past, many states have had laws which governed the buying and selling of black people, or which deemed that the right to vote extended only to males, or that individuals were prohibited from engaging in certain forms of political speech which were not otherwise in violation of any law or ordinance.

Over time, laws of this nature tend to be tested in the courts and, in many cases, eliminated. This task, known as Judicial Review, is one of the most fundamental responsibilities of the court system in the US, and is one of the features that most obviously defines the Common Law system which we take for granted, as opposed to the Civil Law systems derived from the old Roman Law which are prevalent in many central European nations.