Quantcast
U.S. & World

Gay marriage court win in Ohio may spawn new suits

Comments

Return To Article
  • milojthatch Sandy, UT
    Aug. 1, 2013 2:03 p.m.

    @A Scientist

    That's one way of looking at it. A different way of looking at it is that short term, sure, gays and gay supporters will be on "the right side of history", but long term? Don't hold your breath.

    As for ethics, agree to disagree.

  • jddaz West Jordan, UT
    Aug. 1, 2013 10:13 a.m.

    I take it this term "marriage equality" also includes polygamy. So those who opposed, and continue to oppose legalizing plural marriage, are also on the wrong side of history. Equality is equality is equality. Those who say monogamists are "more equal than others" are in error if we accept this premise.

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    July 30, 2013 1:04 p.m.

    @ procurador: Surely you are familiar with "In re May's Estate"?

  • Contrarius mid-state, TN
    July 30, 2013 7:53 a.m.

    @procuradorfiscal --

    "But we also understand the longstanding, fully Constitutional doctrine that carves out an exception for those who choose to marry in another state, as a subterfuge to avoid the requirements and conditions placed on marriage by their state of residence."

    ???

    What in the world are you talking about?

    Exactly how is a couple who marries while living in one state, and then moves to another state, committing any sort of subterfuge??

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    July 29, 2013 10:10 p.m.

    Re: ". . . Republicans and conservatives don't understand about the Constitution: the Full Faith & Credit Clause."

    Sure we do. But we also understand the longstanding, fully Constitutional doctrine that carves out an exception for those who choose to marry in another state, as a subterfuge to avoid the requirements and conditions placed on marriage by their state of residence.

    This doctrine has often been used to invalidate foreign [meaning out-of-state] marriages contracted between parties residing in a state whose laws don't permit their marriage.

    Democrats and liberals also understand. They just believe that this law, like any other they find objectionable or inconvenient, shouldn't apply to them or be enforced, if it doesn't advance their lawless agenda.

  • Maudine SLC, UT
    July 29, 2013 1:37 p.m.

    @ crunchem: I live in Utah, but have relatives in Idaho, New York, Wyoming, Arizona, Texas, Oklahoma, Colorado, California, Washington State, Georgia, and Florida. I also have relatives in Mexico, Canada, and England.

    Many couples engage in destination weddings where they travel to some "exotic" place to have their ceremony.

    Some couples jump out of airplanes and marry in midair.

    There are many reasons to travel for marriage - not least is the type of wedding you want to have. Additionally, there are many reasons to live in one state instead of another.

    Many same-sex couples, no matter how committed they are, are unable to marry in the state where they make their life and livelihood. They have no choice but to travel to other states and marry.

    Only when same-sex couples have their marriage rights recognized in the same manner as heterosexual couples, will they also have the same opportunity to travel for marriage by choice not be necessity.

  • Contrarius mid-state, TN
    July 29, 2013 8:47 a.m.

    @crunchem --

    "someone please explain the reasoning or advantage of having a marriage performed in one state but living in another state that doesn't recognize the marriage?"

    Millions of people move after they are married. In fact, the DN profiled just such a couple recently, who moved from California (where they were married) to Utah. I believe one of the men accepted a professorship at the U of U.

    Some folks move for financial stability, some for career advancement, some follow military orders -- there are just as many reasons for gay people to move as for straight people to do so.

  • crunchem Cedar City, Utah
    July 29, 2013 1:15 a.m.

    someone please explain the reasoning or advantage of having a marriage performed in one state but living in another state that doesn't recognize the marriage?

  • QuercusQate Wasatch Co., UT
    July 28, 2013 12:21 p.m.

    States are allowed to make their own rules regarding many things, and marriage has traditionally been one of those things. As long as a state can demonstrate a legitimate interest in forbidding marriage to teens or blood relatives, they can regulate it.

    However, ever since Loving v. Virginia, states have NOT been allowed to forbid marriage to interracial couples. It's a matter of civil rights, and it's not in a state's interest to prohibit marriage on the basis of race. I believe that states, including Utah, will not be able to demonstrate that it is in their interest to prohibit the marriage of same-sex couples. It's only a matter of time before same-sex marriages are performed in Utah.

    Indeed, when it comes to recognizing gay marriages performed in other states, such as mine performed in Iowa, it's probably only a matter of months. Since Utah doesn't invalidate other states' marriages between minors or cousins when those couples move to Utah, it seems to me this is a rather low legal bar to surmount, even without the recent ruling on DOMA.

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    July 28, 2013 11:53 a.m.

    @worf 6:38 p.m. July 27, 2013

    Sales tax in one state doesn't apply to another.

    -------------------

    "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State."

    Sales tax is not a public Act, Record or judicial Proceeding.

  • Contrarius mid-state, TN
    July 28, 2013 10:33 a.m.

    @Badgerbadger --

    "I guess Utah didn't abide the Oregon sales tax law, where the car was purchased."

    A better example is drivers' licenses.

    If I get my driver's license in TN, I can still drive legally in any other state -- because every state recognizes the licenses issued by every other state, even though each state has different requirements for gaining those licenses.

    Similarly, if I register my car in my home state, that car is considered legally registered in whatever state I might travel to. I don't have to purchase a new license plate in every state I might pass through on a vacation, because every state recognizes the registrations from every other state.

    This does present an interesting question, though. I must obtain my driver's license and my auto registration in my state of residence. Why does that law not apply to marriages as well, gay or straight? Is it because marriage licenses don't ever expire, while the others do? I don't know the answer to that one. Instituting that law would limit the interstate spread of gay marriages -- but I bet straight couples would strenuously object as well.

  • Maudine SLC, UT
    July 27, 2013 9:49 p.m.

    @ Badgerbadger: So, your friend attempted to cheat Utah law by purchasing a car in Oregon that he intended to use in Utah. Utah law requires residents of Utah to pay sales taxes - either at the point of purchase or, if the item is bought out of state or online, to the State of Utah directly.

    What relevance does your friend not being able to cheat the State of Utah have to do with same-sex marriage being recognized?

  • Badgerbadger Murray, UT
    July 27, 2013 8:40 p.m.

    Oregon has no sales tax. A friend who lives in Utah went there to buy a car, but when he wanted to register it in Utah, Utah made him pay the sales tax in order to register it.

    I guess Utah didn't abide the Oregon sales tax law, where the car was purchased.

  • George New York, NY
    July 27, 2013 8:37 p.m.

    @worf

    Your right it is not for you to say, it has already been determined through the full faith and credit clause.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    July 27, 2013 8:27 p.m.

    George: it's not for me to say, but should a legal gay marriage from one state be recognized in a state where it's banned? Should the sales tax in one state be recognized in another? It's an analogy.

    Really???--: people buy things on line from other states to avoid sales tax. I just ordered furniture from North Carolina which saved me over two hundred dollars.

  • Maudine SLC, UT
    July 27, 2013 8:22 p.m.

    @ worf: Actually, sales taxes are recognized across state lines. If I buy a product in Idaho, when I travel back to Utah, I don't have to pay sales tax again - it is already recognized that I paid it. If I order a product online, I have to pay sales tax for the state I live in - but I don't have to pay sales tax in every state that my purchase is shipped through.

    When a same-sex couple is married in one state, those marriages are not recognized in all other states - using your sales tax analogy, that effectively means they are taxed again and again on a purchase while others are only taxed once.

  • George New York, NY
    July 27, 2013 8:01 p.m.

    @worf

    You are right the full faith and credit clause has never applied d to sales tax unlike marriage but what is your point? Again with the erroneous comparisons.

  • Really??? Kearns, UT
    July 27, 2013 7:56 p.m.

    "Sales tax in one state doesn't apply to another."

    Let me see, here. Utah has a sales tax, but Nevada doesn't. If I am a Nevada resident but do shopping in Utah, I am still obligated to pay the sales tax. Also, if I somehow, for some strange reason, owe Utah back sales taxed (I am still trying to figure out how this would happen), and I move to Nevada to try and avoid them, I will still be responsible for paying those taxes.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    July 27, 2013 6:38 p.m.

    Sales tax in one state doesn't apply to another.

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    July 27, 2013 5:22 p.m.

    If a couple is legally married in one state, that couple's marriage should be recognized as legal in all states and by the federal government. That's how the Full Faith and Credit provision of the US Constitution is supposed to work. Kudos to Ohio.

  • Maudine SLC, UT
    July 27, 2013 5:09 p.m.

    Interesting take on comity laws.

  • Contrarius mid-state, TN
    July 27, 2013 4:48 p.m.

    @atl134 --

    "The court ruled that since Ohio recognizes other types of out of state marriages that aren't allowed in Ohio (like first cousin marriage) that it had to recognize these ones too. So I guess I should thank South Carolina and other southern states..."

    Hey, now. It isn't just the Southern states where first cousin marriage is legal -- it's also legal all up the Eastern seaboard, Caliornia, and other states as well. Roughly half of all the US states have first cousin marriages.

    Cousin marriages aside -- it's inevitable that states will start recognizing out-of-state gay marriages. There is no good legal justification not to, especially since they do recognize cousin marriages. It's a shame that gay rights have to move forward in this clunky, piecemeal way -- but at least they are moving forward!

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    July 27, 2013 2:53 p.m.

    The court ruled that since Ohio recognizes other types of out of state marriages that aren't allowed in Ohio (like first cousin marriage) that it had to recognize these ones too. So I guess I should thank South Carolina and other southern states...

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    July 27, 2013 2:36 p.m.

    Gays are among the most committed group there is to marriage. It's too bad no one around here even cares about that kind of commitment anymore.

  • A Scientist Provo, UT
    July 27, 2013 2:17 p.m.

    Those opposed to marriage equality are on the wrong side of history as well as ethics.