If the states have rightful control over who may marry, does the Federal government have the right to deny same-sex couples married under New York laws all the benefits it accords to male-female married pairs joined under Texas law? In other words, did you just come out for the repeal of DOMA?
It’s interesting that Perry’s handlers have decided that his theocon credentials are strong enough so he doesn’t have to out-anti-gay Michelle Bachmann. I was wondering which Republican would figure out that the gay issue is now a loser for the Right. I think the country has had enough of Governors of Texas, but if you want to worry about a Republican, Perry is your guy.
There are probably about a dozen high level elected Republicans who genuinely care about states’ rights, and Rick Perry has never been one of them. It’s just another tool in the shed for winning the argument of the day.
On the other hand, I have a hard time believing gay marriage will be an issue in 2012. If it is, it’ll be an albatross around the GOP’s neck.
I imagine that Perry is for states’ rights in the same way that modern states’ rights supporters are when they support federal tort reform and antebellum Southerners were when they supported the federal fugitive slave act. In other words, I wouldn’t count on him to be consistent and support repeal of DOMA.
Yglesias once opined that governor Perry had all the bona fides that the Republican party needs right now, so the fact that he wasn’t in the race indicated some major skeletons in his closet. I’d say that, or he will strike when the iron is hot, in which case probably closer to 2012.
Isn’t there a conflict between letting states decide and the ‘full faith and credit’ part of the Constitution?
Does DOMA allow TX to ignore the NY gay marriage law, since it’s not recognized at the federal level as well?
Marriages have not traditionally been considered “public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State” within the meaning of the Full Faith and Credit clause. That is not true of divorces, which are judicial decrees.
Apparently, Perry has been plagued by rumors that he himself is rather…fabulous. So I wouldn’t be too sure that he won’t try to out-anti-gay people like Bachmann.
Does DOMA allow TX to ignore the NY gay marriage law…?
Indeed it does. Which is why Perry will still want to keep DOMA in place. DOMA was designed to isolate states that allowed gay marriage in order to discourage the efforts. Now what that would do to a married gay couple in NY that signed a contract governed by the laws of TX is anyone’s guess. Way to run a country, huh?
Strictly speaking, I’d think a states’ rights position would guarantee each state to decide which types marriages from other states to recognize, regardless of what the federal government did. Then you’d have to get into state-by-state agreements: NY and PA agree to recognize one another’s marriages, for example, but maybe IA doesn’t… it could get messy.
I’m no great fan of Perry, but compared with Rick Santorum, he’s a model of political enlightenment:
Tweeting Friday night, Mr. Santorum questioned the claim, tweeting: “So Gov Perry, if a state wanted to allow polygamy or if they chose to deny heterosexuals the right to marry, would that be OK too?”
Read more: http://www.thestatecolumn.com/articles/rick-santorum-goes-after-gov-rick-perry/#ixzz1T2V1dZdb
John Herbison says:
July 24, 2011 at 2:37 am
“Marriages have not traditionally been considered “public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State” within the meaning of the Full Faith and Credit clause. That is not true of divorces, which are judicial decrees.”
I find this hard to believe, because I’ve never heard of (heterosexual) marriages in state A not being recognized in State B (at least since Loving v. Virginia). If the government of one state was not required to recognize the marriages of other states, I’d think that there would be so much trouble that it’d be noticeable.
Barry, exactly. This is the exact nightmare the Founders were trying to avoid. Marriages fall under public records. DOMA uses the same language from Article IV, Section 1 to create a ‘constitutional exemption’. Of course, as the grown ups know, it doesn’t work that way. The law is clearly unconstitutional.