I have heard that same-sex marriage is next on the Christian warriors
agenda. I have some friends who are very scared about that prospect.
I'm trying to understand how that would work. Assuming that Obergefell was overturned, what would happen? Could they try to retroactively undo
existing marriages? Would a married couple going to a red state be
arrested? If they moved to a red state, could they not allow them joint
owner ship of stuff? And the usual stuff: medical releases and such.

I'm guessing it'd be OK to discriminate against them [e.g, no motel
allowing them a room]

Side question - it got me wondering about different states' differing rules
for who can marry [ignoring same-sex]: close relatives, minimum age. For example, what happens now if someone gets married in a state where the
minimum age is 16 and they go to a state where the minimum age is 18?

/Bernie\
--
Bernie Cosell Fantasy Farm Fibers
bernie@fantasyfarm.com Pearisburg, VA
--> Too many people, too few sheep <--

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

According to Bernie Cosell <bernie@fantasyfarm.com>:

I have heard that same-sex marriage is next on the Christian warriors
agenda. I have some friends who are very scared about that prospect.
I'm trying to understand how that would work. Assuming that Obergefell was >overturned, what would happen? Could they try to retroactively undo
existing marriages?

Given how extreme the current court is, it's hard to predict.

Side question - it got me wondering about different states' differing rules >for who can marry [ignoring same-sex]: close relatives, minimum age. For >example, what happens now if someone gets married in a state where the >minimum age is 16 and they go to a state where the minimum age is 18?

The Full Faith and Credit clause of Article IV means that one state
has to recognize marriages from another state. In the early 1900s
there were some funky cases where a spouse went to another state
(usually Nevada) to get a divorce, and the other spouse, never having
been to Nevada, claimed they were still married. In one particularly
fun case, two people who were married to other people went to Nevada,
each got divorced, the two got married, and returned to the home state
which then charged them with bigamay. But that was a long time ago and
states now all recognize each other's divorces. I gather it is
extremely unclear whether US states recognize polygamous marriages
that happened in countries where they are legal.

I have no idea whether the court would say that somehow Full Faith and
Credit doesn't apply to same-sex marriages. The legal basis for that
would be rather contrived but that doesn't seem to have slowed them
down much.


--
Regards,
John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Bernie Cosell <bernie@fantasyfarm.com> wrote:

} I have heard that same-sex marriage is next on the Christian warriors
} agenda. I have some friends who are very scared about that prospect.
} I'm trying to understand how that would work. Assuming that Obergefell was
} overturned, what would happen? Could they try to retroactively undo
} existing marriages? Would a married couple going to a red state be
} arrested? If they moved to a red state, could they not allow them joint
} owner ship of stuff? And the usual stuff: medical releases and such.

One additional thought/worry. Just as many states have abortion-trigger
laws on the books that have been blocked by Roe but will spring to life
if/when it is reversed, the same is true for same-sex marriage. It turns
out that the Virginia constitution includes the mandate that in this state
a marriage shall consist of one man and one woman. So if Obergefell is reversed there will be an *instant*, scary legal mess in many states.

/B\
--
Bernie Cosell Fantasy Farm Fibers
bernie@fantasyfarm.com Pearisburg, VA
--> Too many people, too few sheep <--

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

With [most likely] same-sex marriage as next-up on the radically right
current SCOTUS for reversal, I got to wondering about a few things.

I've heard that there are *hundreds* of law [state laws I presume? Are
there federal laws, too?] that mention and/or affect "marriage". Assuming that's true I have a few questions:

1) in states that honor civil unions and/or common law marriages, are those arrangements completely/implicitly included in/by all the laws affecting
"state sanctioned marriages".

2) Is it possible to archive via various legal documents/agreements [I'm thinking here of things like arranging for visitation at a hospital, joint property, inheritance, medical directives, etc, etc] to get an otherwise unsanctioned partnership to have all {most?} of the protections, rights and privileges of a "state sanctioned marriage". If obergefell gets overturned
I wonder if some lawyers will make a killing in the states that opt not to sanction such unions by providing all those legal documents and such as a package deal :o)

/Bernie\
--
Bernie Cosell Fantasy Farm Fibers
bernie@fantasyfarm.com Pearisburg, VA
--> Too many people, too few sheep <--

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Bernie Cosell <bernie@fantasyfarm.com> wrote:

With [most likely] same-sex marriage as next-up on the radically
right current SCOTUS for reversal, I got to wondering about a few
things.

I've heard that there are *hundreds* of law [state laws I presume?
Are there federal laws, too?] that mention and/or affect
"marriage". Assuming that's true I have a few questions:

There are many laws that deal with marriage. Tax laws, immigration
laws, and probably a lot more.

1) in states that honor civil unions and/or common law marriages,
are those arrangements completely/implicitly included in/by all
the laws affecting "state sanctioned marriages".

Depends on what the state law says.

2) Is it possible to archive via various legal
documents/agreements [I'm thinking here of things like arranging
for visitation at a hospital, joint property, inheritance, medical directives, etc, etc] to get an otherwise unsanctioned partnership
to have all {most?} of the protections, rights and privileges of a
"state sanctioned marriage". If obergefell gets overturned I
wonder if some lawyers will make a killing in the states that opt
not to sanction such unions by providing all those legal documents
and such as a package deal :o)

Some but not all the "benefits" of marriage can be made available.
Before gay marriage was legal, some gay couples would have one partner
adopt the other, giving more rights.

Overturning gay marriage would cause some major problems due to the
full faith and credit requirement in the Constitution. So I doubt it
would happen at this point.

--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 23/06/2022 21:14, Bernie Cosell wrote:

With [most likely] same-sex marriage as next-up on the radically right current SCOTUS for reversal, I got to wondering about a few things.

Justice Clarence Thomas - widely regarded as the Supreme Court's most conservative member - has written a concurring opinion alongside his
vote to overturn Roe.

In it, Thomas goes beyond affirming today's ruling to ask the court to "reconsider" past Supreme Court decisions.

He asks to re-evaluate Griswold, which safeguards the right to
contraception, Lawrence, which invalidated anti-sodomy laws, and
Obergefell, which legalised same-sex marriage nationwide.

In essence, Clarence writes that all three of these rulings - major
progressive victories - are now also up for re-examination.

Quote Message: "In future cases, we should reconsider all of this
Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold,
Lawrence, and Obergefell."

"In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s
substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell."

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 6/23/2022 10:31 PM, Stuart O. Bronstein wrote:

Overturning gay marriage would cause some major problems due to the
full faith and credit requirement in the Constitution. So I doubt it
would happen at this point.

If the Supreme Court overturned Obergefell v. Hodges and United States
v. Windsor, then the Defense of Marriage Act would (probably) be
re-instated. Section 2 says:

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.

The US Constitution, Article IV, Section 1 states:

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 thereof.

So Congress said (boiled down to plain English) that when it comes to
same-sex marriage, the "effect thereof" is "none".

One of my Facebook friends posted a meme referring to the "Keystone
Court". It's beginning to seem more and more apropos.



--
I do so have a memory. It's backed up on DVD... somewhere...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 6/24/2022 10:23 AM, Barry Gold wrote:

On 6/23/2022 10:31 PM, Stuart O. Bronstein wrote:

Overturning gay marriage would cause some major problems due to the
full faith and credit requirement in the Constitution.  So I doubt it
would happen at this point.

If the Supreme Court overturned Obergefell v. Hodges and United States
v. Windsor, then the Defense of Marriage Act would (probably) be
re-instated. Section 2 says:

...



Parts of DOMA have already been deemed unconstitutional. Section 2 was
never decided either way.

An interesting other fact. The California state constitution was
amended twice by the voters to prohibit same-sex marriages. I think the
cases against Prop 8 were made moot by the federal actions. It might
come into affect and those cases revived.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Nobody Special <Nobody.Special@example.onion> wrote:

} Justice Clarence Thomas - widely regarded as the Supreme Court's most
} conservative member - has written a concurring opinion alongside his
} vote to overturn Roe.
}
} In it, Thomas goes beyond affirming today's ruling to ask the court to
} "reconsider" past Supreme Court decisions.
}
} He asks to re-evaluate Griswold, which safeguards the right to
} contraception, Lawrence, which invalidated anti-sodomy laws, and
} Obergefell, which legalised same-sex marriage nationwide.

Did anyone notice that he didn't mention "Loving v Virginia"? I wonder
why he overlooked that one :o)

/Bernie\
--
Bernie Cosell Fantasy Farm Fibers
bernie@fantasyfarm.com Pearisburg, VA
--> Too many people, too few sheep <--

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 6/24/2022 5:19 PM, Bernie Cosell wrote:

Nobody Special<Nobody.Special@example.onion> wrote:

} Justice Clarence Thomas - widely regarded as the Supreme Court's most
} conservative member - has written a concurring opinion alongside his
} vote to overturn Roe.
}
} In it, Thomas goes beyond affirming today's ruling to ask the court to
} "reconsider" past Supreme Court decisions.
}
} He asks to re-evaluate Griswold, which safeguards the right to
} contraception, Lawrence, which invalidated anti-sodomy laws, and
} Obergefell, which legalised same-sex marriage nationwide.

Did anyone notice that he didn't mention "Loving v Virginia"? I wonder
why he overlooked that one :o)

Probably because Loving is pretty solidly based on the 14th Amendment:

...nor shall any State...deny to any person within its jurisdiction the
equal protection of the laws.

Treating people differently because of their race is pretty clearly what
the writers of the 14th had in mind.

--
I do so have a memory. It's backed up on DVD... somewhere...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Bernie Cosell <bernie@fantasyfarm.com> writes:

Nobody Special <Nobody.Special@example.onion> wrote:

} Justice Clarence Thomas - widely regarded as the Supreme Court's most
} conservative member - has written a concurring opinion alongside his
} vote to overturn Roe.
}
} In it, Thomas goes beyond affirming today's ruling to ask the court to
} "reconsider" past Supreme Court decisions.
}
} He asks to re-evaluate Griswold, which safeguards the right to
} contraception, Lawrence, which invalidated anti-sodomy laws, and
} Obergefell, which legalised same-sex marriage nationwide.

Did anyone notice that he didn't mention "Loving v Virginia"? I wonder
why he overlooked that one :o)

Because

1. Loving isn't a substnative due process case.

2. Loving fits very nicely in Thomas's position that the Privileges
and Immunities clause is the appropriate standard for rights cases.

--
dhs spencer@panix.com

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)