Political Genius Spitzer Forges Ahead
ALBANY - Gov. Spitzer said at a private fund-raiser that he wants a Democratic-controlled state Senate to legalize gay marriage - a highly divisive and controversial issue - as one of its first priorities in 2009, a witness to the remarks told The Post.
Spitzer, a gay-marriage proponent, pledged to help Democrats next November win the three Senate seats they need to gain the majority.
JammieWearingFool says:
Admittedly, he’ll probably have an easier time getting this passed in the ultra-liberal State of New York.Though you really do have to wonder about his priorities. How about attracting some business to the state and worry about your idiotic social experiments later?
So what’s the problem? I thought conservatives were all about the “laboratory of the states” and “let the states decide,” and “federalism.” Why get all bunch-pantied about an “ultra-liberal” state passing a liberal marriage law?
Unless, of course, there’s some bigotry involved…?
Submit to Stumbled Upon!
I would say many would not care if it weren’t for the Art 4, Sec 1 of the Constitution.
Oh, you mean the way I have to get fingerprinted to get a California real estate license because you have to in Florida?
Or the way twelve year olds can get married in NY because they can in Alabama?
(I know - it’s changed now - but that sort of dichotomy used to be the standard, not an exception).
Two total strawmen, Bill. More apt analogy is that because one state is giving away licenses to perform brain surgery I have to let them come to my state, open a practice, and claim all the benefits someone who’s actually qualified has…. and it will be considered a “hate crime” worthy of jail if I so much as open my mouth on the subject. It’s the second half of the proposition that’s the bigger problem.
Actually, no. Further, because one state gives somebody a license to practice law, that doesn’t mean he can practice law in your state.
Melt your own strawmen, SDN. I’m doing fine.
Where, exactly, is this happening?
Not even in San Francisco. Don’t wax so hysterical. It doesn’t do your case any good.
Bill it is not that one state has to follow the same rules, but according to Art 4, Sec 1 If a pair of 14 yo got married in Alabama and them moved to NY a year later, NY would have to respect the union. Though those same 14yos could not marry in NY.
Why would a state be forced to recognize a marriage license when it doesn’t recognize a license to practice law? Or a license to sell real estate, for that matter?
You guys should understand it isn’t article four you have to fear, it’s the 14th Amendment. I don’t fear either one, and I think even if gay marriage was the law of the nation, the uproar would die down in about fifteen minutes. The horrors are theoretical, not realistic.
Abortion hangs on as a battleground because actual human lives may be (at least at some point in the process) at stake. There is nothing even remotely like that in the entire gay marriage issue.
Most States recognize a lawyer from one state performing services in another if they have passed the bar in their state of residence and the service is not persistent. As an example, OJ’s Fla lawyer is now recognized as permitted to serve as council in Nevada as he produced his credentials to the NV bar.
I don’t know about CA Bill but FL will waive the 80hr training requirement for any Realtor in good standing from another state. They just pass the exam and they have the license.
Chalk it up to simple greed. Practicing some economic activity, the professional boards want to limit free exercise thereof, whereas marriage is not viewed as an economic activity. [Except if you are on the losing end of a divorce, but I digress…]
States don’t honor other states’ professional licenses, but most others are honored, like drivers’ licenses. One little point: two 14 year olds can’t marry in Alabama. The female can be 14, but the male must be 17. That’s been the law in Alabama since 1919, and other states have been honoring those marriages. Personally, I think anti gay marriage laws are in the same class as anti-miscgenation laws, and will be resolved the same way.
John: You’re quibbling.
Lorenzo: Possibly. But not via Article 4. To repeat: anti-miscegenation laws were overturned on 14th Amendment grounds, not Article 4.
Beg pardon, but states do *not* have to recognize marriages from other states *if* that marriage would not have been legal in the state in which the couple is currently residing. In practice, if you keep your head down they don’t do much.
However, for instance, there is currently a pair of women in Connecticut (I think) who went to MA to get married, then returned to CT to live. Now they want to get divorced and can’t. Why? Because CT doesn’t recognize their union as a marriage under CT law, so there is nothing to divorce and there is a residency requirement in MA to get a divorce.
Marriage has, until recently, been a matter of state law. However, Bill is quite right that the danger is from the 14th Amendment.
Because marriage is an act of the courts. The others you mentioned are administrative or legislative; they don’t have the same claim upon “full faith and credit” as do judicial acts.
That’s not to say that it’s a good argument. It is, though, the argument that will be used. It is the argument that foisted some states’ lax divorce laws upon the nation. On what basis would you argue that marriage is different?
Every state in the union has the same divorce laws because of Article Four? Do you have a cite for that?
No, they don’t. But they’re each required to recognize divorces granted in other states. Start with Williams v. State of North Carolina, 317 U.S. 287, and work up from there.