Constitutional Law on Contracts

[Prima5]

I live in Texas, not that it's relavent. My question is, when you marry or have some other type of contract, isn't it somewhere in the constitution that basically says that contracts must be honored even across state lines so that if you are married in one state, because it's a contract, all other states must recognize it and likewise with other contracts?

Thanks!

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

I live in Texas, not that it's relavent. My question is, when you marry or have some other type of contract, isn't it somewhere in the constitution that basically says that contracts must be honored even across state lines so that if you are married in one state, because it's a contract, all other states must recognize it and likewise with other contracts?

Thanks!

My response:

Yes, it's the U.S. Constitution Full Faith and Credit Clause (U.S. Const. Art. IV, § 1)

Read it, along with the cases discussing it.

IAAL

 

[Prima5]

Thanks!

My response:

Yes, it's the U.S. Constitution Full Faith and Credit Clause (U.S. Const. Art. IV, § 1)

Read it, along with the cases discussing it.

IAAL

Thanks! That's what I thought. Reason I ask is because I am a government student and it's been argued that because the Constitution has no provision for same sex marriage, that if a same sex couple marries in a state that allows same sex marriage, that marriage license is a contract and that contract should be recognized over state lines, just like marriage contracts between a man and a woman. Any thoughts?

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

Thanks! That's what I thought. Reason I ask is because I am a government student and it's been argued that because the Constitution has no provision for same sex marriage, that if a same sex couple marries in a state that allows same sex marriage, that marriage license is a contract and that contract should be recognized over state lines, just like marriage contracts between a man and a woman. Any thoughts?

My response:

That's where you're wrong. Marriage is not a "contract". It's a legal "bond." As such, the various states are free to decide which types of marriages they will recognize; e.g., California will not recognize a Gay marriage.

Pursuant to the federal Defense of Marriage Act, "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" regarding a same-sex relationship between persons that is treated as a "marriage" under the laws of the other State, territory, possession or tribe, or to "a right or claim arising from such relationship." [28 USCA § 1738C; Knight v. Super.Ct. (Schwarzenegger) (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 14, 20, 26 Cal.Rptr.3d 687, 691]

More specifically with regard to the extraterritorial recognition of a "marriage," California's Defense of Marriage Act bars the recognition in California of same-sex marriages that have been, or may in the future be, legitimized by laws of other jurisdictions. [Ca Fam § 308.5 (Prop. 22)--"Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California"; see Armijo v. Miles (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 1405, 1424, 26 Cal.Rptr.3d 623, 637; Knight v. Super.Ct. (Schwarzenegger) 128 Cal.App.4th at 20, 26 Cal.Rptr.3d at 691--"In other words, section 308.5 supplants the directive of section 308 in the case of same-sex marriages"]

IAAL

 

[Prima5]

What's the difference?

My response:

That's where you're wrong. Marriage is not a "contract". It's a legal "bond." As such, the various states are free to decide which types of marriages they will recognize; e.g., California will not recognize a Gay marriage.

IAAL

So what's the difference then between marriage being recognized and divorce being recognized state to state? Each state can define what constitutes a legal marriage? I guess that's why that issue is up in Texas for a constitutional amendment that defines marriage as being between a man and a woman. So, even though marriage "bonds" are recognized across state lines, states have the ultimate say on what kinds of marriage they will recognize. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[john123456]

So what's the difference then between marriage being recognized and divorce being recognized state to state? Each state can define what constitutes a legal marriage? I guess that's why that issue is up in Texas for a constitutional amendment that defines marriage as being between a man and a woman. So, even though marriage "bonds" are recognized across state lines, states have the ultimate say on what kinds of marriage they will recognize. Thanks for the clarification.

IAAL was gracious enough to complete most of your assignment, don't push it.

 

[Prima5]

Not an assignment

IAAL was gracious enough to complete most of your assignment, don't push it.

When I said my class was discussing this issue, I did NOT say it was an assignment. I was simply curious as to what the facts were. No one did any assignment for me! Read more carefully next time!