The Proposed Legalization Of Samesex Marriage Is One Of The
.. impact marriage laws in all of the United States. The full faith and credit clause of the U.S. Constitution provides that full faith and credit shall be given to the “public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state.” Marriage qualifies for recognition under each section: — 1) creation of marriage is “public act” because it occurs pursuant to a statutory scheme and is performed by a legally designated official, and because a marriage is an act by the state; 2) a marriage certificate is a “record” with a outlined legal effect, showing that a marriage has been validly contracted, that the spouses meet the qualifications of the marriage statutes, and they have duly entered matrimony. Public records of lesser consequence, such as birth certificates and automobile titles have been accorded full faith and credit; 3) celebrating a marriage is a “judicial proceeding” where judges, court clerks, or justices of the peace perform the act of marriage.
It would seem evident that if heterosexual couples use Article IV as a safety net and guarantee for their wedlock then that same right should be given to homosexual couples. — This Article has often been cited as a reference point for interracial marriages in the south when those states do not want to recognize the legitimacy of that union by another state. As this is used for that lifestyle, there is no logical reason it should be denied to perhaps millions of homosexuals that want the opportunity to get married. The obstacles being out in front of homosexual couples is in the name of the “normal” people that actively seek to define their definition to all. It is these “normal” people that are the definition of surplus repression and social domination.
Yet as they cling to theConstitution for their freedoms they deny those same freedoms to not “normal” people because they would lose their social domination and could be changed. Therefore it would seem they are afraid to change, and have not accepted that the world does change. Unfortunately the full faith and credit clause has rarely been used as anything more then an excuse to get a quick divorce. A man wants a divorce yet his wife does not or will not void their marriage. He then goes to Reno, Nevada, buys a house and gets a job for six weeks.
After that six weeks when he can declare himself a legal resident he applies for a singular marriage void and because Nevada law allows one side to void their marriage is they are a resident of Nevada their marriage is now void. The man now moves back to his home state, and upon doing so this state must now recognize the legitimacy that Nevada has voided out the marriage. Even if the wife does not consent, the new state cannot do anything about it. That is what usually full faith and credit is used under. Legislation enacted by President Clinton from Senator Don Nickles of Oklahoma called the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) has allowed individual states to react differently to any intrusion of marriage that they feel is not proper.
DOMA states “marriage means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife.” “Supporters of DOMA also claim clear constitutional warrant, and that Congress is exercising its own authority under Article IV to prescribe the manner in which the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state, shall be proved.” However it would seem that by allowing individual states to alter and change what the meaning of marriage is, it could create a disaster if even heterosexuals want to wed. The underlying principle in DOMA is that states now have the right to redefine what they feel is or is not appropriate behavior and shall be allowed or illegal in their state. It is also apparent that the signing of DOMA by President Clinton was more of a presidential campaign gesture then an actual change in policy. While he has shifted considerably from his platform in 1992 this move was specifically designed to change his image among more conservative voters. It is also apparent that this move did not work because a majority of conservative Americans still voted for Bob Dole in the 1996 Presidential election. Clinton, now that he has been re elected, partially under the front of a more moderate administration, should seriously rethink its policy on social change and whether he wants to go out as the President that denied hundred of thousands of people the opportunity for equal rights.
In 1967 the Supreme Court announced that “marriage is one of the most basic civil rights of man…essential to the pursuit of happiness.” Having the highest court on the land make such a profound statement about something which current politicians think they can regulate like phone or tv’s is something short of appalling. For who is to say what happiness can be created from wedlock but the people that are in the act itself, per couple, household and gender. The Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act proclaim that “All marriages contracted…outside this State that were valid at the time of the contract or subsequently validated by the laws of the place in which they were contracted..are valid in this State”. This Act has been enacted in seventeen states and could be the foundation for full faith and credit if marriages were to take place in other states. However as much as the right wing conservatives wish to pursue an aggressive anti-gay/lifestyle agenda the DOMA act has been widely criticized as intensely unconstitutional. It is bias and discriminatory toward homosexuals and there fore against the United States Constitution and once again the fourteenth amendment proclaiming all citizens equal.
Fearing that the state may have to recognize same-gender marriages from Hawaii, because of the controversy over DOMA the state legislatures of Arizona, South Dakota, Utah, Oklahoma, Kansas, Idaho, and Georgia, have made preemptive strikes and enacted state legislation which bars recognition of same-gender marriages. Several other state legislatures, including Alabama, Arkansas, California, Delaware, Louisiana, New Mexico, Kentucky, Maine, South Carolina and Wisconsin, have attempted to enact similar legislation, but failed. After Hawaiian marriages are brought to these states for enforcement, these laws will lead each state into a potential separate constitutional challenge of its same-gender marriage ban. Those cases could be the new foundation for a sweeping change in popular American politics and thought and will perhaps pave the road for increased awareness of this human rights issue. Leaving aside, as government should, objections that may be held by particular religions, the case against same-gender marriage is simply that people are unaccustomed to it. Bigotry and prejudice still exist in our evolving society, and traditionally people fear what is strange and unfamiliar to them.
One may argue that change should not be pushed along hastily. At the same time, it is an argument for legalizing homosexual marriage through consensual politics as in Denmark, rather than by court order, as may happen in Hawaii. — Works Cited “Gay marriages should be allowed, state judge rules,” The Wall Street Journal, Dec. 4, 1996, 1996 “Hawaii judge ends gay marriage ban,” New York Times, Dec. 4, 1996 “Hawaii ruling lifts ban on marriage of same-sex couples” Los Angeles Times, Page 1A, 1996 Dec.
4, 1996 “Announcing same-sex unions,” The Boston Globe, Page 15A, Dec. 2, 1996 — Bonauto, “Advising non-traditional families: A general introduction,” OCT B. B.J. 10, September-October 1996. Cox, Barbara “Same sex marriage and choice of law”, 1994 Wisconsin Law Review. Gibson, “To love, honor, and build a life: A case for same-gender marriage,” 23-SUM Hum.
Rts. 22, Summer 1996. Reidinger, Paul, American Bar Association Journal, Oct 1996. Stoddard, Thomas, “Gay marriages: Make them legal”, Current Issues and Enduring Questions, Bedford Books, Boston, 1996. Wiener, “Same-sex intimate and expressive association: The pickering balancing test or strict scrutiny?” 31 Harv. L.
Rev. 561, Summer 1996 “In sickness and in health, in Hawaii and where else?: Conflict of laws and recognition of same-sex marriages,” 109 Harv. L. Rev. 2038, June 1996 Levendosky, Charles, Greensboro News and Record, “Congressional Intrusion Into Marriage Just Gets DOMA and DOMA”, May 20 1996 Baehr v.Miike, 910 P.2d 112 (Hawaii Jan 23, 1996) Baehr v.
Lewin, 852 P.2d 44, (Hawaii May 5, 1993) Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), enacted 1996 Article IV, sec.1 United States Constitution Handbook on Uniform State Laws, United States Code, Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act.