This is what happens when people who haven't been following the SSM debate decide to jump in. Liz Mair takes Stephen Bainbridge to task over the introduction of the "full faith and credit" clause. Unfortunntely, she does so for all the wrong reasons.
Full faith and credit in relation to same-sex marriage was recognized long ago as no more than a Dobson Gang talking point simply because the courts have historically allowed the states great leeway in that area, particularly under laws governing social institutions. Anyone would be a fool to try to make a federal case for same-sex marriage under full faith and credit. Automatic go-down-in-flames.
Mair's counter-example, which, as it turns out is inaccurate, is also a bit far-fetched. There is no chance that the federal courts would force Utah to recognize legal prostitution under a contract entered into in Nevada: it might seem logical, but her position is completely devoid of any grounding in history or law. (And I find it interesting that the Nevada law, which allows counties to license brothels, still holds in a red state in a red region. I haven't heard of any big push for repeal on that one, have you? Oh, I forgot -- it's only my sex life that's an issue.)
Bainbridge, in the post linked above, also goes on to agree with Bruce Bartlett's assertion that marriage is "purely a religious" issue. This is purely opinion, and really has no basis in history or in law, aside from the fact that clergymen are automatically granted the authority to act for the state in performing marriages. That in itself should point up the fallacy of Bartlett's statement.
Maybe that deserves some reinforcement: Bartlett has it backwards, and Bainbridge is agreeing with him.
Previous posts:
Marriage and the Courts, Bainbridge Style
More on Bainbridge on Marriage
No comments:
Post a Comment