Appeals Court Rules Against Federal Marriage Act

[Imran Siddiqui]

I don't trust Congress for much, but I do trust them to know basic legal facts.

Really?!

[Dinner]

Dude, you're incredible. Am I the only one who appreciates your total detachment from reality?

No. I'm pretty sure everyone here has noticed it.

[Tupac Shakur]

Really?!

Yes. It's kind of a crucial part of being a legislator.

[Ben Kenobi]

He doesn't understand how the US government works and probably never will, because he insists he knows better than the natives how their own government works.

Considering as I have to teach natives about how the US government works, yes, it's part of my job.

[gribbler]

You've already demonstrated that you don't understand how the US government works. I'm not sure how you intend to teach it. Do you simply read from the textbook?

[Ben Kenobi]

Gribbler says 17, I guess that may be true

The full list:

The 13:

Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, Massachusetts, New York, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina.

Special cases:

Vermont (not part of the 13, joined later, never a colony).

(Texas), not part of the 13,
(California), not part of the 13.

That leaves Maine, (part of Massachusetts), West Virginia (part of Virginia), Kentucky (part of Virginia).

And that brings you to 19.

[Ben Kenobi]

You've already demonstrated that you don't understand how the US government works. I'm not sure how you intend to teach it. Do you simply read from the textbook?

Actually, I got permission to revise the curriculum my first year. We go quite a bit more in depth. I've had two students (out of 30), fail their Texas assessments, everyone else has done well. All my students this year passed.

[Ben Kenobi]

It's not a regulation, it's a political condition. Once a state joins the Union, it is equal to all the other states. That's been the procedure since the Enabling Act of 1802. I thought you knew at least that much about US History.

And the fact that Texas, (and California) for that matter weren't under the common law has some consequences for the legal system in both. Specifically provisions for the Catholic church. Recall that the Mexican constitution provided for government support of Catholicism, something that wasn't present in most of the United States.

[Felch]

And the fact that Texas, (and California) for that matter weren't under the common law has some consequences for the legal system in both. Specifically provisions for the Catholic church. Recall that the Mexican constitution provided for government support of Catholicism, something that wasn't present in most of the United States.

Oh my God, you're worse than Oerdin. The only state with any trace of civil law left is Louisiana. Every other state is fully common law. Let me reiterate: It does not matter if a state was once a territory, or fully sovereign. Once they join the Union, all states are equal. It's only when they apply to join the Union that Congress can impose conditions on their application for statehood. Congress could deny admission to the Union because of the political beliefs of the constituency (as it often did balancing Free and Slave states prior to the Civil War), but once that state is in, it can't be ****ed with.

[gribbler]

And the fact that Texas, (and California) for that matter weren't under the common law has some consequences for the legal system in both. Specifically provisions for the Catholic church.

Provisions specifically for the Catholic church in the Texas constitution...?

[Hauldren Collider]

Oh my God, you're worse than Oerdin. The only state with any trace of civil law left is Louisiana. Every other state is fully common law. Let me reiterate: It does not matter if a state was once a territory, or fully sovereign. Once they join the Union, all states are equal. It's only when they apply to join the Union that Congress can impose conditions on their application for statehood. Congress could deny admission to the Union because of the political beliefs of the constituency (as it often did balancing Free and Slave states prior to the Civil War), but once that state is in, it can't be ****ed with.

My understanding is that Louisiana basically uses a de facto common law system even if they pretend to be civil law.

[Aeson]

Ergo - it is a power of the federal government, not the states. That's the consequence of the issuance of the marriage visa. States cannot deny entry, but the federal government can.

You are confusing the states' obligations to observe the right for citizens or lawful immigrants to move freely within the US with a non-existent obligation to observe the marriage. USCIS would observe (or not) the marriage. A visa would then be given/refused. The state is only required to observe the visa (or later, green card or citizenship), which in and of themselves are not a marriage.

What would happen is that people would be legally married under the federal government, and receiving benefits in the federal government and would be petitioning state governments for similar recognition. So yes, the legal consequence would be the the states would be forced to recognise it.

No. They are obligated to observe visas. They are not obligated (or involved at all) in observing what criteria the visa was issued based on.

It is going to be a huge issue. First thing we are going to see, is someone going to Texas petitioning the Texas state government for recognition, and going from there. I'd lay my house on it. All the liars saying that the 'states will not be forced', bullshit. It's a federal issue. Always has been. If it wasn't a federal issue, than Utah could have been admitted with polygamy. They were not.

petition != forced to accept petition.

Hence my point. The states have no say whatsoever.

The states have no involvement whatsoever in recognizing the marriage. Your point is completely inapplicable to reality.

[Ben Kenobi]

Oh my God, you're worse than Oerdin. The only state with any trace of civil law left is Louisiana.

And did that happen overnight? No. They specifically changed the laws to reflect these changes over time. How they changed these laws, and when - does have bearing wrt to the English Common law. They have to explicitly say that "this jurisdiction is under English Common Law", before that can be applied. Sure, it means going back to those boring things like the Texas constitution, and what happened during reconstruction - but these things have to be looked at!

Every other state is fully common law. Let me reiterate: It does not matter if a state was once a territory, or fully sovereign. Once they join the Union, all states are equal. It's only when they apply to join the Union that Congress can impose conditions on their application for statehood. Congress could deny admission to the Union because of the political beliefs of the constituency (as it often did balancing Free and Slave states prior to the Civil War), but once that state is in, it can't be ****ed with.

Ok, but the fact that certain states did not have this imposed on them through the territorial process is significant. Because it means we have to go back and check and see when this became the law and how that law became the law in the first place. This, btw, is one of the reasons they passed the law back in 1880 banning polygamy outright in the territories.

[Ben Kenobi]

You are confusing the states' obligations to observe the right for citizens or lawful immigrants to move freely within the US with a non-existent obligation to observe the marriage. USCIS would observe (or not) the marriage. A visa would then be given/refused. The state is only required to observe the visa (or later, green card or citizenship), which in and of themselves are not a marriage.

Forcing the state to observe the visa (per the Federal laws), amounts to the same thing. We'd see a petition within a year. I'm telling you that this is how it will happen if this change is done, and yes - 'states rights', aren't going to matter one whit. What is going to be argued is the exact opposite of what is being argued now - that the US has to have a common law on marriage, and that not doing so amounts to discrimination - etc.

You want to lay a bet against this outcome that a state is going to be able to hold out making this assertion? I'll take that bet.

They are not obligated (or involved at all) in observing what criteria the visa was issued based on.

Do you think that the Federal government is going to permit a ruling by the state to reject recognition of the marriage to stand? Might have been true when nullification was still on the board - but it's been a very long time since any powers at all have been reserved to the states when there is a conflict between the desires of the federal government and between the desires of a state. Everytime there is a conflict, the federal government wins.

[Ben Kenobi]

Provisions specifically for the Catholic church in the Texas constitution...?

Why do you think Sections 4, 5, 6, 7, 21, 26 exist?

And there we go.

Sec. 32. MARRIAGE. (a) Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman.(b) This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.

And there we go. Texas Constitution, but it wasn't there when it was first passed.

That's my point - Texas wasn't compelled to recognize laws against bigamy/polygamy, except through the application of federal laws.

[gribbler]

Why do you think Sections 4, 5, 6, 7, 21, 26 exist?

And there we go.

Sections 4,5,6,7,21 and 26 of what?

And there we go. Texas Constitution, but it wasn't there when it was first passed.

That's my point - Texas wasn't compelled to recognize laws against bigamy/polygamy, except through the application of federal laws.

You think Texas amended its constitution in 2005 because of federal opposition to polygamy...?

[Ben Kenobi]

Sections 4,5,6,7,21 and 26 of what?

Bill of Rights of the Texas constitution.

4, 5, 6, 7, addresses sectarianism in Texas, and address specific peculiarities in the Mexican constitution. 21, addresses suicide - a law in Mexico at the time prevented descendents of suicides from inheriting the property. Probably a few others as well that address Santa Anna's nonsense.

[gribbler]

Bill of Rights of the Texas constitution.

4, 5, 6, 7, addresses sectarianism in Texas, and address specific peculiarities in the Mexican constitution. 21, addresses suicide - a law in Mexico at the time prevented descendents of suicides from inheriting the property. Probably a few others as well that address Santa Anna's nonsense.

No mention of the Catholic Church in any of them. I don't see how provisions that prevent the government from favoring any religious sect could be construed as "provisions for the Catholic church". They aren't provisions for Catholics in any way that they aren't also provisions for, say, Baptists.

[Ben Kenobi]

No mention of the Catholic Church in any of them. I don't see how provisions that prevent the government from favoring any religious sect could be construed as "provisions for the Catholic church". They aren't provisions for Catholics in any way that they aren't also provisions for, say, Baptists.

Goddamn. This is why teaching this stuff is painful.

The Mexican constitution explicitly provided support for Catholicism. 4,5,6 and 7, in the TX bill of rights all address the support for Catholicism, by explicitly rejecting it.

[Felch]

Similar provisions are found in all sorts of state constitutions. This has nothing to do with whether they were federal territories, or Mexican possessions.

http://www.churchstatelaw.com/statec...ions/index.asp

[gribbler]

Yeah. They would have written the same thing even if Mexico had been secular.