Full Faith and Credit Q... are we ready for a trade-off?

[bobvela]

This is completely off topic from what is normally said here... but an area I think might have some opinions on.

Recently I've been thinking about the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the US Constitution... the clause that makes a driver's license, vehicle registration, boat license, lean, criminal record, (opposite sex) marriage license, dog license, etc that is issued in one state… is legally valid in any of the others (when the visitor to the state is there for a short time).

With the exception of professional licenses (doctor, lawyer, engineer) and hunting/fishing licenses (which exclusively involve the wildlife of a given state), there are two primary areas where a license is granted in one state is not honored in the other 49... that being marriage licenses between a same sex couples, and concealed weapon permits.

Both I expect one day to be honored nationally... while I know that at some point both will ultimately be honored nationally given the Full Faith and Credit Clause (and there being a good enough challenge)... I question how soon it will happen... but am still compelled to wonder if there is a way to speed things up so I ask...

To the liberal/progressive/Democrat leaning folks on this forum... would you drop your opposition to federally enforced reciprocity (without local or state pre-emption) of concealed weapons permits... in return for conservatives/libertarians/Republicans dropping opposition for a state issued same sex marriage license being honored in all 50 states… meaning that said sex marriage would even be honored in... Provo, UT (said to be the most conservative city)?

To conservative/libertarian/Republican leaning folks on this forum... would you drop your opposition to DOMO and federally enforced recognition (without local or state pre-emption) of same sex marriage licenses... in return for liberals/progressives/Democrats dropping opposition for a state-issued concealed weapon licenses being honored in all 50 states... meaning that you could legally pack when walking down the street in San Francisco or New York City (said to be a couple of the most liberal cities)?

[BluegrassCat]

Answering as a liberal, no, I wouldn't. Marriage equality, to me, is a natural extension of the civil rights battle of the 60's and an appropriate and moral role for the federal govt to fill. Gun rights carry no such moral weight and are better left to the states.

[bobvela]

Answering as a liberal, no, I wouldn't. Marriage equality, to me, is a natural extension of the civil rights battle of the 60's and an appropriate and moral role for the federal govt to fill. Gun rights carry no such moral weight and are better left to the states.

While I understand where you are coming from emotionally... view it from a purely legal lens... Why is one license issued to the resident(s) of one state any less valid than another when one is traveling to another state?

You don't have to take a drivers when I visit a neighboring state, nor do you have to re-license my dog... why should I have to be re-licensed to have a same-sex marriage honored... or my right to carry a concealed weapon?

Here is the bugger... there is more Supreme Court precedent supporting the second amendment than there is same-sex marriage (though I expect that to change)... though if you wish to play the card of 'states rights', I would like to hear the arguments for why one license vs another... and please, speak only in a legal sense, not an emotional appeal.

[BluegrassCat]

Not being a lawyer I don't know how to answer in only a legal sense...but I think the crux of the argument for many liberals is the moral repugnance of denying a group their civil rights based on prejudice. How people are allowed to handle and conceal firearms does arguably affect the lives (and deaths) of people in a way that marriage equality never could. So should people have the right to defend themselves against concealed-weapon permits by outlawing them in their states...absolutely.

[Ineeda SM]

I answer as a liberal also, and I agree with BluegrassCat. A marriage is not designed to kill someone. A gun is and needs stronger regulation by the states. A marriage is an agreement between 2 people to share their lives as a couple in the eyes of religion. A gun is a weapon that can be carried by anyone with a permit, and used anytime illegally to end a persons life.

All other licenses are mainly just used as ID and proof that you have passed a drivers test, or your dog has had his/her shots...etc...

A marriage is an agreement decided between 2 people only, and not with the law. A gun is a weapon designed specifically to kill. They are two very different things and should not be considered for a trade off.

[bobvela]

I answer as a liberal also, and I agree with BluegrassCat. A marriage is not designed to kill someone. A gun is and needs stronger regulation by the states. A marriage is an agreement between 2 people to share their lives as a couple in the eyes of religion. A gun is a weapon that can be carried by anyone with a permit, and used anytime illegally to end a persons life.

All other licenses are mainly just used as ID and proof that you have passed a drivers test, or your dog has had his/her shots...etc...

A marriage is an agreement decided between 2 people only, and not with the law. A gun is a weapon designed specifically to kill. They are two very different things and should not be considered for a trade off.

Who said that a concealed weapons license is designated to kill someone?

Ignoring the whole second amendment thing (which has been incorporated over the states back in 2012)… most states (34 of them as of May 2010, I'm too lazy to see if that # has increased (which I expect it has)) have some form of 'stand your ground' or 'castle doctrine' legislation where you have the right to defend yourself with lethal force if sufficiently threatened... regardless of if you have a right to carry a concealed weapon within the state (important in the case of home invasion).

More so, just as different states have different standards as to what it takes to get married, pass a driver's test, or license a car, or a dog, or a boat... they also have different standards as to what it takes to carry a concealed weapon... why discriminate against one group vs another?

While it is true that a marriage is an agreement between two parties (many of the civil benefits which can be largely be established through contract law in terms of visitation, inheritance, etc)... there is also a state aspect to it which carries other legal aspects as enforced through the state (vs a lawyer). Don't forget that while some companies (Google & Microsoft being the biggest names amongst them) have chosen to offer benefits to a SSDP (Same Sex Domestic Partner)... in most cases it is up to an individual company as to if they wish to offer such benefits... vs being mandated by the state.

Again I ask, why discriminate against one licensed group vs another?

[BluegrassCat]

Again I ask, why discriminate against one licensed group vs another?

I think if you enunciate exactly what each group loses, you'll have your answer.

A revealing question is: Would you give up straight marriage in order to have your federal gun statutes? If not why not?

[loren]

A gun is a weapon that can be carried by anyone with a permit, and used anytime illegally to end a persons life.
A gun is actually an artillery piece. A handgun can be carried by anyone with a permit, and can be used to legally protect their own or that of another party (if legally able to defend themselves).

[BluegrassCat]

Here's a deal I would accept: Medicare starting at age 0 for all citizens in exchange for federal firearm policy.

[RallyCola]

see...this is the problem right here. THESE ISSUES HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH EACH OTHER yet it is a perfect example of how our bullshit system works. rather than debate the merits of each issue and decide separately on each, we have these compromises which fuck up the ability of our government to be what it claims it aspires to be.

i am a fiscal conservative and social liberal that believes in small government, a flat tax and equal/universal rights for all. i would not require anyone to give up any stance on gun laws to push through full marriage rights for all citizens/residents...fuck those illegals though...if we find them...deport them

[onmyknees]

This is completely off topic from what is normally said here... but an area I think might have some opinions on.

Recently I've been thinking about the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the US Constitution... the clause that makes a driver's license, vehicle registration, boat license, lean, criminal record, (opposite sex) marriage license, dog license, etc that is issued in one state… is legally valid in any of the others (when the visitor to the state is there for a short time).

With the exception of professional licenses (doctor, lawyer, engineer) and hunting/fishing licenses (which exclusively involve the wildlife of a given state), there are two primary areas where a license is granted in one state is not honored in the other 49... that being marriage licenses between a same sex couples, and concealed weapon permits.

Both I expect one day to be honored nationally... while I know that at some point both will ultimately be honored nationally given the Full Faith and Credit Clause (and there being a good enough challenge)... I question how soon it will happen... but am still compelled to wonder if there is a way to speed things up so I ask...

To the liberal/progressive/Democrat leaning folks on this forum... would you drop your opposition to federally enforced reciprocity (without local or state pre-emption) of concealed weapons permits... in return for conservatives/libertarians/Republicans dropping opposition for a state issued same sex marriage license being honored in all 50 states… meaning that said sex marriage would even be honored in... Provo, UT (said to be the most conservative city)?

To conservative/libertarian/Republican leaning folks on this forum... would you drop your opposition to DOMO and federally enforced recognition (without local or state pre-emption) of same sex marriage licenses... in return for liberals/progressives/Democrats dropping opposition for a state-issued concealed weapon licenses being honored in all 50 states... meaning that you could legally pack when walking down the street in San Francisco or New York City (said to be a couple of the most liberal cities)?

Well...it's an interesting thought, and I give you a hat tip for coming up with it....but it's not realistic. The States are constantly wrestling with the Federal government on a whole host of issues from unfunded mandates, to health care, to the EPA, which makes the upcoming case on the commerce clause and the mandatory health insurance requirement so interesting.
You are correct in that there are a maze of gun laws from state to state, mostly distinguishing long guns from hand guns. I still believe I could travel from Salt Lake ( by car or plane) to suburban NY with a long gun, and not run into any particular issues, as long as I skirted NYC !! Handguns are another matter , yet I still believe the states should have the right to somewhat regulate them. The Supreme Court strike down of the DC Gun ban throws and interesting twist into this as well. I think ultimately it comes down to how much the States are willing to surrender to the central government, and the answer is generally not much. And in the end, I think the Madison and Hamilton envisioned the theory you have outlined and, and addressed it rather nicely in the Federalist Papers. Here's one for ya. Maybe we should make the reading and understanding of that "mandatory" for everyone seeking political office.

[NYBURBS]

Interesting question, but here's the thing... The Full Faith and Credit clause was generally a requirement that each state recognize judgments from other states, and accord the records of other states the same weight they do their own in official proceedings. However, there has been a long history of a public policy exception whereby one state need not give force to another state's record if it involves something that is otherwise illegal in that state. If same sex marriage is eventually recognized nationally I think it will be because it's held to be an equal rights issue under the Constitution (therefore striking down laws in all states) rather than a Full Faith and Credit issue.

Comity is another method that states use to recognize the acts of other states, and a lot of marriage/divorce actions can fall under that, but it is voluntary on the part of each state.

[bobvela]

Rather busy day for me offline... so was delayed in what looks to be a rather large reply...


I think if you enunciate exactly what each group loses, you'll have your answer.

<shaking head> you really don't understand the issue here.


A revealing question is: Would you give up straight marriage in order to have your federal gun statutes? If not why not?

Utter nonsense.


Here's a deal I would accept: Medicare starting at age 0 for all citizens in exchange for federal firearm policy.

Again, emotional thinking vs legal thinking. You may want to look up the difference between a so called positive right vs a negative one... as well as the difference between you being given something, vs being not prevented from doing something.


see...this is the problem right here. THESE ISSUES HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH EACH OTHER yet it is a perfect example of how our bullshit system works. rather than debate the merits of each issue and decide separately on each, we have these compromises which fuck up the ability of our government to be what it claims it aspires to be.

i am a fiscal conservative and social liberal that believes in small government, a flat tax and equal/universal rights for all. i would not require anyone to give up any stance on gun laws to push through full marriage rights for all citizens/residents...fuck those illegals though...if we find them...deport them

While I agree that the two issues have nothing to do with each other, the fact that they are the two major holdouts against incorporation is striking.

You say that you are for "equal/universal rights for all"... to what extent? Just with regards to same-sex marriage? Or in all areas... including the right to carry when traveling in another state?


You are correct in that there are a maze of gun laws from state to state, mostly distinguishing long guns from hand guns. I still believe I could travel from Salt Lake ( by car or plane) to suburban NY with a long gun, and not run into any particular issues, as long as I skirted NYC !!

You are correct, the Firearms Owners Protection act protects you from the locals so long as you are just passing through... however my Q is with regards to actually stopping, maybe seeing a site or two before going home... something that in NYC can get you locked up for a minimum of 3.5 years (http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/288599/free-meredith-graves-editors) if you try to obey what you believe the law to be.


Handguns are another matter , yet I still believe the states should have the right to somewhat regulate them. The Supreme Court strike down of the DC Gun ban throws and interesting twist into this as well.

First up... it's not just DC v Heller, but McDonald v Chicago which dramatically limited the power of a state or municipality to prevent ownership or possession.

No one, not even SCOTUS in either ruling said that there should be no right to regulate them at all... the question is to the degree... which raises the Q: To what extent though? States regulate the requirements for licensing a vehicle or a person within their boundaries... while a vehicle and driver from a neighboring (less restrictive) state is still legal when in a more restrictive one.

Example: An opposite sex married couple (ages 17 & 18) decide to take a weekend road trip (in their licensed Arizona licensed vehicle (where only a rear license plate is required)) to California (where both front and license plates are required).

Assuming the 18 year old is driving (ie on a full license)... is their marriage suddenly invalid and their vehicle breaking California law?

Think about it... California not only requires a front license plate, but also has a much higher bar for a minor to being able to marry.

The answer is no... because under FF&C... the licenses are valid... however if they did decide to move to California and register their vehicle there... then a front plate would be required.


I think ultimately it comes down to how much the States are willing to surrender to the central government, and the answer is generally not much. And in the end, I think the Madison and Hamilton envisioned the theory you have outlined and, and addressed it rather nicely in the Federalist Papers. Here's one for ya. Maybe we should make the reading and understanding of that "mandatory" for everyone seeking political office.

Agreed... though I'd also support a similar requirement on voters... it is depressing at times to see how little the average voter knows about not just what happens in their state or national capitol... but the basics of economics, liberty, or the ideas that basis of the founding of this nation.

Quick book plug that should also be required reading: Amazon.com: Ameritopia: The Unmaking of America (9781439173244): Mark R. Levin: Books@@AMEPARAM@@http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51%2BKUSxV81L.@@AMEPARAM@@51%2BKUSxV81L (http://www.amazon.com/Ameritopia-Unmaking-Mark-R-Levin/dp/1439173249/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top)

[JenniferParisHusband]

As someone who has 2 Law degrees and a Political Science Doctorate (quallifying me only to ask "do you want fries with that?"), let me take a crack at this. There is a huge difference between Marriage and Concealed Weapons permits.

Marriage: Marriage stems from your 5th Amendment right to not be deprived of Liberty. Liberty really doesn't encompass a whole lot of areas, but what it does encompass is pretty important. Parental rights, family relations, contraception, and marriage. These are considered Fundamental Rights, those given by god that all human beings possess regardless of government. It is why you get rulings that allow interracial marriage, and why eventually, even thought the courts are taking their sweet fucking time getting to it, same-sex marriage. When will this happen? No clue. Probably not for a few more decades considering the makeup of the current Supreme Court, but it will come. It is a Civil Rights issue, and moreover a Moral Rights issue.

The Full Faith & Credit argument is illogical at this point, as the Federal Supremacy doctrine is the more apt argument. Currently, Federal Law and judicial cases only recognize marriage as between a man and a woman. A state can, within it's own systems of laws enter into certain areas where the Federal government has ruled and make laws and rulings that are contracdictory, tougher or weaker. In California for example, medical weed. Federally, criminal. California, de-criminalized/not enforced, depending on the area. But the Federal law still supercedes. The feds jump at the chance to pick up someone in Arizona who got Medical MJ from a place in LA. It's now Federal as opposed to confined to the states. States are normally able to overcome supremacy where the Federal gov hasn't entered the area at controversy. Drivers licenses for example. Each State can govern who gets them and how, because it will only concern people living in their state and subject to their laws. Marriage is a fundamental right at the federal level, you can't deny the right to marriage, but each state can limit or expand upon it. Age of consent, same-sex, procedures for licensing, solemnization authority, termination of marriage, etc.

So, eventually, when enough states have enacted same-sex marriage, and there is a different court that recognizes "gender" as a protected class under Equal Protection (a whole other lengthy paragraph), then this Civil and Moral right will become Supreme.

Concealed Weapons: Under the 2nd Amendment, you have the right to bear arms. This is not a Fundamental Right. If I own a business, I can tell you and your concealled weapon to fuck off, and that you aren't coming into my business and there's not a damn thing you can do. Marriage? Not the same. With very very few exceptions, if I tell you that married couples are not allowed, you've got a hell of a law suit on your hands. Like all parts of the bill of rights (including the 5th Amendment I alluded to above), the States have inherited these rights by way of the 13th and 14th Amendments. So, Federal government can deny your right to bear arms, and since the 13th and 14th, neither can states. But...

That being said, EVERY STATE, can restrict usage that doesn't prohibit the basic right to own and legaly use. And even with fellons, there's leeway on ownership. You can't restrict any part of a legal marriage. No sex between married couples at the Holiday Inn, good luck Feds, I'm going to double up on the wifey before the complimentary continental breakfast! No guns in a post office? done! So, some states you can't have a weapon in a bar, some ban extended clips, some certain types of Ammo. Prohibition of carrying a concealed weapon does not in any way inhibit your ability to bear (in the leagal sense meaning legal use and ownership) of the weapon. It merely makes the requirement to make them visable, the law, as dictated by the states.

The basic difference, try bringing your gun and your wife to your local courthouse, see which one they let you keep. You'll understand the difference pretty quick.

[BluegrassCat]

this is utter nonsense

glad you finally realized that equating the two issues is nonsense as Mr. JP explained so well.

[Ineeda SM]

@ JenniferParisHusband

Excellent post. If that doesn't clear up the differences between a weapon designed for the only purpose of killing, and 2 people in love who want to share their lives in marriage, I don't know what can.

You can not use a limited right of law as a trade off for a basic human right deserved by all.

This thread makes no sense.

[JenniferParisHusband]

Thanks, haven't been able to use the law degree much lately, good to put it to some use.

[Ineeda SM]

Thanks, haven't been able to use the law degree much lately, good to put it to some use.

LOL I'm glad to see somebody did. But will the OP learn from it? Doubtful. The trigger happy never do.