 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Infinite catsThe Infinite Cat Project. Strangest thing ever. "A defence that won't work against a threat that doesn't exist": SDI deployed in AKDELTA JUNCTION, Alaska — As early as this summer, rockets hidden in silos near this wind-swept town will give the nation its first operating defense against intercontinental ballistic missiles since the 1970's. Although the system is not a secret, it has been revived with so little fanfare that few Americans seem to realize it exists. Democracy now!Story. Kristol & Kagan on the way forward in Iraq. More on gay marriageOn a couple of the message boards I'm on, people have challenged my interpretation of the constitution that the MA ruling has effectively legalized gay marriage nationwide. And I have to admit that on second reading, I was wrong, although they're not entirely right, either. 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 thereofThey then points to US Code, Title 28, Chapter 115, Section 1738C: No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.Let me first debunk this argument quickly, before I get to the more important issue. In argument, one may abandon reason and appeal to various external factors, including authority. In legal argument, that's virtually required; but this argument commits a logical fallacy by appealing to inferior authority - one can't rebut a constitutional argument by citing a Federal Law, which is necessarily inferior to the Constitution. When two statutes are in conflict, the more recent statute prevails, but the Constitution is a superstatute: it always prevails. See, Antonin Scalia, A Matter of Interpretation. You can refer to other sections of the Constitution, or to a SCOTUS judgement, but never to a law. In any instance, my interpretation of Art. 4, Sect. 1, is that the second clause (text which is quoted above) gives Congress the right to regulate the format in which the public acts of States are communicated to other States, but not to proscribe their communication, which the law cited does. In my view, this interpretation of the Constitution would rule 28 USC §1738C unconstitutional under the 4th Article and the 9th, 10th and 14th Amendments. That's the good news for supporters of gay marriage. The bad news for those advocates is that there's more - and this is the important point, because as I said, goshdarnit, I was wrong previously. Article 4 does NOT give the MA verdict full force nationally. Here's why: Article 4 Section 1 requires full faith and credit to be given to the public acts, records and judicial procedings of every other state. Art. 4 Sec. 2 prevents States from proscribing the priveleges and immunities of the citizens of the several States. Note the differing language: the several states, meaning many or a majority of, vs. every other state, meaning, clearly, EVERY other State. Some might contend that this is a drafting error, but I contend that it is a deliberate choice of language, and that the Fouding Fathers were very clear as to the difference between requiring States recognize rights ensured by many of the States (I sense that the slavery issue might have something to do with the choice of language here), vs. requiring States to be compliant with the public acts and judgements of every other state. This choice of language clearly allows Indiana, at this time, to pass laws proscribing gay and lesbian couples from marrying Indiana, while precluding it from passing laws refusing to recognize the validity of marriages held in other States. So it's good news and bad news. The Constitution DOES seem to prevent states from refusing to recognise the validity of ANY marriage license granted in accordance with the laws of any other State, and DOES prevent states like Oklahoma from refusing to recognise adoptions by gay couples. But none-the-less, the Constitution really doesn't seem to stop States from banning gay marriages within their boundaries. |
    
|