|
0
Nerd-Its
|
|
current event
by The spotty recognition of gay marriage in the U.S. was bound to cause legal problems given the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution, which seeks to maintain a uniformity of rights among the various states, and now it has. An emerging case features a gay couple married in Massachusetts, who are now seeking a divorce in the Rhode Island court system. The difficulty, of course, is that Rhode Island does not recognize gay marriage, so can the state even contemplate authorizing gay divorce? The Supreme Court of Rhode Island has punted the decision for now saying, "we have decided that it would be premature for us to respond to the certified question at this time ..." Some may wonder if this case will answer the larger legal question of "Can a plurality of definitions of marriage exist in these United States?"
Star This to Save in Your Profile 
Add a Comment (2)
Email This
Message Author
Statistics
Thread parent sort order:
Thread verbosity:
0 Nerd-Its
Bigger Legal Quandry
Since the Federal Government desires nothing more than to push this off on the states, Full Faith and Credit Clause is a bigger quandary. If one state refuses to recognize Gay Marriage from another, then the 'rights afforded to a married couple' don't apply. This relates to everything--from taxes to insurance to survivor rights.
Not only that, but there also exists the possibility of someone someday suing a religious institution that fails to recognize Gay Marriage into performing them, thereby violating that institutions First Amendment Right to Freedom of Religion.
Catholic Charities in California are already required to provide birth control insurance. The ruling is that they are a 'business' and not a 'religious institution'; however that seems to be a gray area because Catholic Charities receives its' operating budget (or at least the bulk of it) from the Church itself.
A review of the decision is here from Cato Review; this seems to open a lot of doors under the Full Faith and Credit Clause.
RSS
Another wrench in the works. by gnifyus :: NR7 :: Show
From the last sentences of the “emerging case” link:
Rhode Island law does not explicitly prohibit or allow same-sex marriages, so attention has focused on whether Rhode Island courts would conclude there is local jurisdiction to handle the divorce case.
You can bet Rhode Island is going to do anything it can to distance itself from this one.
(Can’t you hear them thinking, “Just - make - it - go - away….”)
Massachusetts lawmakers procrastinated as long as they could also.
For some reason I just love when any contentious issue (whatever it might be), that’s been going back and forth for a long time gets a wrench thrown in the works. (I live in Massachusetts.)