Clarification on CA marriage laws.

[LTR_Seeker]

im calm as ice youre the one thinkingof raging woodys & killing the rooster lol

[BeardedOne]

Heh @ 'flirtjacking'

There is something in the Constitution or subsequent amendments that requires each state to recognize the legal institutions, licenses, etc. of the other states. I forget the name of the clause/amendment (I'm sure one of our legal beagles can speak up on this), but the basic concept is that it prevents chaos as regards basic rights, etc. of a traveling citizenry across state/provincial borders within the country.

It is via this law that Idaho recognizes a Florida driver's license and Alaska recognizes a Pennsylvania car registration and insurance card. That's the most common example. It's also supposed to cover marriage and similar familial situations such as adoption, legal name change, etc.

The latter (Marriage), however, is continually tested. The most common test has been as regards the age of consent to marriage and/or sexual relations. Pennsylvania used to (And may still) allow marriage by consent and in addition to consent of parent as early as the age of fourteen on the grounds of religious freedom (The Amish and Quakers). Delaware, by a 1932 reckoning of the AoC laws of the then 48 states, had the record low of age =eight= (Though I sure as hell hope that we've tweaked it upwards a bit since then - Not that there's evidence of that having happened). It was not uncommon for a newly and legally wedded couple to find themselves spending their honeymoon behind bars in another state because of the variant AoC laws of that state.

And so now, with California, Massachusetts, and Hawai'i playing the gender rights hand with regards to marriage, the battle begins anew. If you wed in California and therefore become subject to that state's community property laws, what becomes of your stuff should you relocate to one of the joyful states that is so adamant about stifling free expression of marital bliss? The 'Las Vegas wedding, Mexican divorce' takes on a whole new meaning when all you'd have to do to make a clean split is pay a bridge toll and rent a loft on the other side of the river.

Personally, I just don't get the marriage thing. Male, female, fish, fowl, sheep. It just doesn't click in my head. It's an institution for people that want to live in an institution. If anything, I think all of the single people should file a class-action litigation to break this bullshit up where you have to take on a partner in order to share rights, property, and privileges with whoever you damn well please.

Grrr...Don't get me started.

[Justawannabe]

Yeah, I'm curious what's gonna happen with this one myself.

Adoption laws have recently tested the 'clause' in question. With a variety of states basically passing laws that prevent adoption by homosexual couples, they had to deal with already built families moving between states. The main result so far has been 'done in one state can't be undone by another', but with the current Supreme Court, don't bet on any leeway.

Sandra O'Conner royally pissed me off when she finally saw the light, declared private sexual behaviour none of the Governments business, reversing the Georgia cases precedent, then quit. It was like she was too ashamed to stay, rather than just wanting out of the job. The new Justices since then would reverse that in a heartbeat if they get the chance.

Sean

[Tomfurbs]

It was not uncommon for a newly and legally wedded couple to find themselves spending their honeymoon behind bars in another state because of the variant AoC laws of that state.

wow!

[justatransgirl]

.....