Gay Marraige Amendment

[Joe Republic]

Lovely.  Two women marry in Massachusetts, and have a baby via some artificial means.  After three years, one woman moves to Utah and takes the child along.  She now is a citizen of the State of Utah.

What recourse does the other woman have?

That's an interesting one.  Here's one for you too.

A 17-year-old boy and his 16-year-old girlfriend get married in Mississippi.  They didn't need parental consent because the law of the state allows them to marry at that age anyway.  Now let's say they happen to have a kid, and the wife decides to hightail it with the kid over to her relatives in Texas, where state law dictates that marriage licenses can only be granted to over-18-year-olds, unless parental consent was given.

What recourse does her husband have?

You see, the situation you describe is not an example of something that will begin to happen if gay marriage is permitted, because this kind of legal wrangling is already taking place.

[Richard]

where state law dictates that marriage licenses can only be granted to over-18-year-olds, unless parental consent was given.

You cannot get married if you are under 18, but out of state marriage licenses are recognized, even if it was issued to those under 18.

[Joe Republic]

So there you have it.  Surely if a state can recognize out-of-state licenses for what they consider to be minors, then I'm sure it's not so hard for them to recognize out-of-state licenses for gay marriages too.

[A18]

A state does not have to recognize an out-of-state marriage for minors or gays.

[Joe Republic]

I didn't say they had to recognize the licenses.  Richius' argument against gay marriage in this case is that it would lead to complicated lawsuits across state borders, where differing laws are the root of the problem.  I counter it by saying that such a situation already exists with regards to minors.

[Max Power]

No, that would be a terrible decision.

[Platypus]

why all this discussion about a piece of old, illegal and outdated parchment?

Huh?  Are you referring to the Constitution itself?  I sincerely hope not.

Is it old? Yes. Is it illegal? Well, it was at the time, and retrospective lawmaking is contentious at best, so yes. Is it outdated? There have been many constitutions of better quality since, so yes.

[opebo]

why all this discussion about a piece of old, illegal and outdated parchment?

Huh?  Are you referring to the Constitution itself?  I sincerely hope not.

Is it old? Yes. Is it illegal? Well, it was at the time, and retrospective lawmaking is contentious at best, so yes. Is it outdated? There have been many constitutions of better quality since, so yes.

You make a great point, hugehento about the wild overrating of the US constistution.  But then again, Americans are full of hubris about just about everything, aren't they?

[A18]

He didn't make a 'point,' he expressed a really dumb opinion, and made an inaccurate statement about the legality of the Constitution.

[opebo]

He didn't make a 'point,' he expressed a really dumb opinion, and made an inaccurate statement about the legality of the Constitution.

No, the constitution is not a particularly good example of its type, so that was not a dumb opinion.  Also, I suppose it is 'legal' in the sense that the proper rulers of America - the British - had by that time given it up in some formal legal way.  Still, there is no doubt it is a highly overrated peice of work.

I mean, my goodness, many people in countries without any constitution at all are much more free than Americans, so the thing can't be all that good.