I was cheered considerably today when I saw the headline about California's ruling on gay marriage. California at least is joining most of the rest of the developed world in allowing people to marry based on their commitment and mutual affection, without worrying about whether one has a Tab A and the other has a Slot B. So to speak.

What I am wondering about is whether other states will recognize same-sex marriages performed in CA. As we all know, individual states (and some Indian reservations) have different legal definitions of marriage, which are broadly similar but can differ in the specifics. Your legal rights, privileges and obligations as a married individual or couple depend on what state you live in, but if you get married in, say, New York, you are still considered married if you and your spouse move to Wisconsin, even though you don't have a Wisconsin marriage license. One state recognizes the legitimacy of marriage in another.

I don't know whether "marriage transfer" between states is mandated by federal law or what. Or, if it is, whether that federal law will by intention, phrasing or some other loophole prevent same-sex couples married in California (or Massachusetts) from having their marriage recognized elsewhere. I would appreciate knowing the specifics.

I haven't head of any same-sex couples married in Massachusetts suing another state for not recognizing their legal married status, but perhaps it just didn't make the front page. Can someone tell me if this has happened?

BookBeast:

I was cheered considerably today when I saw the headline about California's ruling on gay marriage. California at least is joining most of the rest of the developed world in allowing people to marry based on their commitment and mutual affection, without worrying about whether one has a Tab A and the other has a Slot B. So to speak.

What I am wondering about is whether other states will recognize same-sex marriages performed in CA. As we all know, individual states (and some Indian reservations) have different legal definitions of marriage, which are broadly similar but can differ in the specifics. Your legal rights, privileges and obligations as a married individual or couple depend on what state you live in, but if you get married in, say, New York, you are still considered married if you and your spouse move to Wisconsin, even though you don't have a Wisconsin marriage license. One state recognizes the legitimacy of marriage in another.

I don't know whether "marriage transfer" between states is mandated by federal law or what. Or, if it is, whether that federal law will by intention, phrasing or some other loophole prevent same-sex couples married in California (or Massachusetts) from having their marriage recognized elsewhere. I would appreciate knowing the specifics.

I haven't head of any same-sex couples married in Massachusetts suing another state for not recognizing their legal married status, but perhaps it just didn't make the front page. Can someone tell me if this has happened?

Texas won't recognise their marriages.

We passed an amendment to the state Constitution 4 years ago defining marriage as a union between a Man and a Woman. Only the US Supreme Court can trump that amendment under the current makeup of the court I don't forsee any challange to the Texas Constitution on this issue going anywhere to change it.

Our Senators are already talking about an Amendment to the US Constitution similar to the the Texas Amendment. With any luck that will be ratified before Scalia retires.

Texas Pete is right, at least about Texas, and any other state that has already passed laws against gay marriages. Generally speaking, states are more or less autonomous, and unless there is national recognition of gay marriages, there will be no way to force all states to recognize the laws of one state. Even if there is national recognition, some states will still resist recognizing gay marriage in their own states and to some extent, states can do this.

k84:

Texas Pete is right, at least about Texas, and any other state that has already passed laws against gay marriages. Generally speaking, states are more or less autonomous, and unless there is national recognition of gay marriages, there will be no way to force all states to recognize the laws of one state. Even if there is national recognition, some states will still resist recognizing gay marriage in their own states and to some extent, states can do this.

Okay, that makes sense. Is there some kind of law mandating national recognition of interracial marriages? I would imagine that it was needed back when interracial marriage was an issue like same-sex marriage is today.

1. Normally, states recognize the validity and legality of other states' actions. DOMA carved out an exception to that rule in regards to same sex marriage. Signing DOMA might be the single most craven political action of Bill Clinton's career.

2. If the Supremes ever rule that same sex couples have an equal protection right to marriage like straights do, then all state laws and constitutional amendments to the contrary become unconstitutional. Barring that, states are free to decide on their own. In Loving v. Virginia (I forget the exact year), SCOTUS decided that laws against interracial marriages violated the Constitution, and thus all such laws were voided when Loving was decided.

jwzich:

1. Normally, states recognize the validity and legality of other states' actions. DOMA carved out an exception to that rule in regards to same sex marriage. Signing DOMA might be the single most craven political action of Bill Clinton's career.

2. If the Supremes ever rule that same sex couples have an equal protection right to marriage like straights do, then all state laws and constitutional amendments to the contrary become unconstitutional. Barring that, states are free to decide on their own. In Loving v. Virginia (I forget the exact year), SCOTUS decided that laws against interracial marriages violated the Constitution, and thus all such laws were voided when Loving was decided.

That's not entirely true. For instance, according to federal law, marijuana is illegal -- however many states have passed laws that are directly in violation of that federal law. Abortion is the same way: federally, abortion is legal, but many states have passed laws against it. Most states, when it comes to such matters, invoke states' rights...and win.

It's one thing for the federal government to pass laws. The ability to enforce such laws, though, is weak at best.

Really? Where's the state where abortion is illegal? Or where pot is more than de facto legal? Just because California doesn't allocate any police presence to bust medical pot distributors and doesn't view it as a crime according to California law doesn't mean that the federal government can't.

Re k84:

Yeah, I forgot about the whole matter of states defying federal law. Don't a couple of states also defy certain federal bans on importing prescription drugs?

The thing is, that can work or it can really go bad. Declaring "states' rights" is touchy because states that allowed slavery used that argument to legitimize slavery. Also, pre-Civil War states' rights were considered to be a lot broader than they are now - there was a time when people thought of the United States as a closer-knit version of the U.N. today, with sovereign nation-states bound in a mutual agreement. After the Civil War the states were more like provinces. I think the pendulum is swinging back to states' rights now, for various reasons.

When a state passes a law that is in violation of federal law, the state's law isn't considered a law. The supremacy clause and the Civil War demonstrate federal legal superiority to the states.

The pendulum started swinging back with Lopez v. US in 1995, but the Supremacy Clause is still the rule of the land. Lopez was more about curbing the extent to which the commerce clause was used. When a state law directly contradicts federal law, however, it loses.

jwzich:

Really? Where's the state where abortion is illegal? Or where pot is more than de facto legal? Just because California doesn't allocate any police presence to bust medical pot distributors and doesn't view it as a crime according to California law doesn't mean that the federal government can't.

There are states where laws against abortion are on the books. They may not be legal, but they're still there, and the states with such laws will make it very difficult for anyone to build abortion clinics or perform abortions in any fashion other than quietly.

Then there are states that legalize pot, at least to a certain degree, although it's against federal law. It's usually states and not the FBI or what have you that deal with drug offenses (unless, say, we are talking about a major drug-smuggling ring). Federal agents COULD bust medical pot distributors in CA, but they are busy with other things and I doubt the federal government wants to step on CA's toes that way, partly because it's just bad press and partly because it would affect the next election, whenever that was going to be.

Oh, and remember that there used to be a federal speed limit of 55 MPH on all highways? States ignored it, and the limit was not really enforced because if the states and the people think a law is stupid, what can you do? Eventually the federal speed limit law was repealed. Maybe a lot of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act will go the way of the dinosaurs as well, because it's obvious that people think it's a stupid law. (It is, too. Technically, watching episodes of Fox shows that Fox puts up on its own website is actionable under the DMCA because you are making a digital copy of the show in your computer's memory.)

Sometimes laws on the book don't mean that much against actual circumstances. Contradictions like these buy more space for real life, rather than ideology.

California, presumably, will recognize marriages performed in Massachusetts (though the reverse is not true, due to the law in Massachusetts). California, unlike Massachusetts, WILL allow couples who reside in other states to marry in California, unless there is a law in California that I am not aware of limiting marriage to residents of the state.

I was saddened, but not surprised that, California continues to lead the country in perversion. If there was only a way to quarantine that kind of poison!

Well watch out. Now that California's economy is collapsing like a pack of cards those California libs are fanning out to neighboring states in search of real estate markets they can inflate - ruining the local economy with their malevolent presence.

BookBeast:

What I am wondering about is whether other states will recognize same-sex marriages performed in CA. ... I don't know whether "marriage transfer" between states is mandated by federal law or what. Or, if it is, whether that federal law will by intention, phrasing or some other loophole prevent same-sex couples married in California (or Massachusetts) from having their marriage recognized elsewhere.

Bookbeast -- I have written a blog post which addresses the question you asked. Is it at:

<link>

Please feel free to take a look.