But it also says “and the effect thereof.” Is it the effect of the proof of the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings or the effect of the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings themselves? I guess that’s where the interpretation comes in.

…except it’s not at all. The rights are currently deprived, and the onus is still on the SSM side to bring a ra’aya that those rights should be given.

Also, considering that the movement is to specifically define marriage as between and man and a woman, and to specifically amend constitutions to block SSM, I would argue that the status quo is the opposite of what you pose, and that the onus to being on those that wish to alter it rests the onus on those that wish to ban it.

Pre-emptive motions after seeing court rulings in other states that took the reverse position, right or wrong. The status quo is still against SSM.

And no, I’d argue as strongly in that case that the other states should not have to accept the marriage from Mississippi.

Also, considering that the movement is to specifically define marriage as between and man and a woman, and to specifically amend constitutions to block SSM, I would argue that the status quo is the opposite of what you pose, and that the onus to being on those that wish to alter it rests the onus on those that wish to ban it.

As with “pushing it on other states,” allow me to use an example to illustrate that this isn’t as bad as some make it out to be:

consider that the age of consent to marry (without parental consent) is almost universally 18. Except in Mississippi, where it is 15 for a girl and 17 for a boy. If a 17-year-old couple marry, fully legally, in Mississippi, the FFC would assert that that union would have to be recognized in NY, even though NY would not have married them. That’s the point of the FFC (otherwise, in this situation, one of them could flee the jurisdiction to avoid marital obligations). NY has a policy reason to not allow those younger than 18 to marry. But MI can still “push” their younger age on other states. Something tells me this would not make you, LWY, Adam or Kenny quite as indignant, would it?

Noyam – He hates my use of “why not” in general. I hate his use of “why yes”. In this case, I think the onus is on those who wish to change the status quo, which (regardless of right or wrong) currently has SSM as nothing. I don’t think that “there’s nothing harmful about it” is a particularly convincing argument, considering that it is a values argument far more than anything else. You’d need something a lot stronger than that, particularly to push it on other states as Adam noted above.

Nephtuli – The bolded clause refers to the manner in which “they are proved,” DOMA goes to the substance of the acts. That’s the difference.

G – You’re welcome, I guess. Not sure what you’re thanking me for.

-Why not?
by Ezzie
—
Ezzie: Why yes?
by noyam

–Thank You, Noyam!

Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

Why isn’t DOMA permissable as per the bolded clause above? DOMA is a Congressional determination of the effect of the “acts, records, and proceedings” of SSMs around the country.

It’s been a few years since I’ve looked at this stuff, but what am I missing?

Why? DOMA passed by a very comfortable margin. Almost 30 states have their own constitutional amendments barring SSM. All DOMA does is prevent using the FCC to impose SSM on other states. I think it could pass.

And what you’re saying about a 1 person majority dictating social policy, that wouldn’t exactly be true. If SCOTUS finds DOMA unconstitutional, the next step would be for a particular state to bring an action that it’s own policy could provide it protection from another state’s SSM. Then it might be up to the court to decide whether blocking SSM is a legitmate public policy to protect.