Gay Faith and Credit
So the news world is all abuzz over the new ability for same-sex “marriages” in California. And make no mistake about it, this is NOT gay “marriage.” Gays have ALWAYS had the ability to get married. They just didn’t like the fact that the word “marriage” applied to people of different sex. So the only new “right” here, completely invented by judges, in opposition to people, is same-sex “marriages.”
But one thing I keep hearing about is that California’s newly judge-discovered “right” lets non-residents of California “marry” a person of the same sex (or a dog, or many people, etc). And people are already claiming that because of the full credit and faith clause of the Constitution (sure, the left wants to use that thing now), other states will be forced to recognize same-sex “marriages” in their home states. I think that’s a damn load of crap, and if state government had any guts at all, this would be a complete non-issue. And I can find at least two ways that this is true.
First, why does the application of the “full faith and credit” clause only go one way? In other words, why can California decide they like a law, then they can FORCE every other state to have that same law, but it doesn’t work the other way? In other words, if NC judges created a law that said all people who engage in homosexual sex should be jailed, why shouldn’t California be FORCED to follow that law due to the “full faith and credit” clause? In addition, that clause actually says, “Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.” That says EVERY OTHER state. In other words, if every single other state doesn’t have the same law, we should be able to ignore it.
At the same time, I can see another way that the rest of the states who don’t want to be forced to recognize this newly created toilet of a societal norm can easily apply it. It goes like this:
Sure, we, as a state, recognize that you, as North Carolina citizens, are “married” in California. We do not dispute that, and we give California the full faith and credit that you’re “married” there. But you’re not married here, so go suck eggs.
Oh, how I yearn for freedom.
Popularity: 12% [?]
Possibly similar posts - More Judges Making Laws - Right to Marry? - Representative Republic? - In An Absolut World - Christian Blogger Symposium
How I loathe activist judges.
Oh, in today’s PC-speech, I don’t think they’re called “activist.” I think they’re called “interpretive…” I think they should be called treasonous.
I like option two!
Good post Ogre and amen!
I honestly don’t understand why states don’t have any guts. They’re supposed to have power. They’re supposed to stand up for themselves and govern themselves. But I’m dreaming of another time and another place… where there is actual freedom.