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 respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.
Of course, he has heard of DOMA. He is simply trying to either ignore DOMA, or set up a court fight in an effort to get DOMA struck down. It is always interesting to see when people who do not believe in state rights invoke them when it comes to ignoring DOMA. If someone maintains that states aren't required to follow one federal law their Attorney General thinks is unconstitutional, then I'm sure they will also side with states that opt out of all sorts of federal laws, right?
The Associated Press has the story.
Maryland law defines marriage as between a man and woman, but Gansler, a Democrat, wrote that the state generally acknowledged couples married elsewhere. Maryland is one of six states that does not specifically address the validity of same-sex marriages from other states.
I wonder if one state issued marriage licenses in polygamous or incestuous situations if he'd say the same thing? How about an open-carry gun permit? (Standard disclaimer: Yes, nonincestous monogamous same-sex pairing is different from incest and polygamy. But all three kinds of relationships are not recognized as marriage in Maryland even though some people want them licensed as marriage.)
[Some more good stuff after the jump.]
But state Delegate Don Dwyer, a Republican who adamantly opposes recognizing same-sex marriage, said Gansler should be impeached for issuing the opinion, which he said "circumvents and usurps the authority of the Maryland General Assembly."
It is just another example of how advocates of homosexual behavior will go ahead and do whatever they aren't forcibly prevented from doing, no matter the toes they step on, like they do in schools.
Right now, just about anything they do is part of their effort to neuter marriage nationwide, and any tactic will be used. They'll use civil unions or domestic partnerships as a Trojan Horse, talking about how vital they are – until they are implemented, after which some of the same people will call them an insult. This is why I am suspicious of the motivations of some who want people to be able to openly practice homosexuality and serve in the military (the topic is in the news again today – see here and here).
In very loosely related news – A Lutheran denomination continues to split up over homosexuality advocacy.
Oh good lord, what an irrelevant argument. That DOMA doesn't require states to recognize same-sex marriages doesn't mean that states are forbidden from enacting policies that recognize those marriages. New York did the same thing in 2008. There's nothing in Gansler's opinion that violates DOMA. It isn't even legally binding.
ReplyDeleteAx
ReplyDeleteThis has been widley reported on. The state AG's opinion was highly polticized. Maryland is one of several states who's high court ruled that same-sex "marriage" was NOT aconsitutional right.
This is rightfully seen as a backhanded attempt to thwart the will of the people and the court opnion.
PW is just keeping us abreast, and I'm glad he did...because I had not dug into it myself.
Ax: ...what an irrelevant argument.
ReplyDeleteYou should have ended that with a colon, not a period.
[DOMA] doesn't mean that states are forbidden from enacting policies that recognize those marriages.
Since attorneys general don't enact policies, your statement is utterly irrelevant.
“Maryland’s statutory law clearly states that ‘Only a marriage between a man and a woman is valid’ in Maryland. The Maryland Supreme Court upheld the law and stated clearly it was the province of the legislature to change it. What part of the law doesn’t the Attorney General understand? What other laws is he unwilling to enforce? This is an outrageous example of running roughshod over the rights of the people of Maryland in pursuit of a private political agenda,”
ReplyDeleteI happen to know a little something about the role and the realities of state and local government legal counsel. In this case, the AG is getting it wrong, and I can only guess that his motivation it either his personal agenda or he's deliberately trying to start a court fight. Maryland is not obligated by current law to recognize neutered licenses from other states. An AG is not supposed to operate by a personal agenda, but rather in service to the people of the state.
ReplyDeleteYeah from what I've heard so far, this AG is extremely ambitious... but I haven't heard when the next election is. If soon, then his re-election will be seen as a referendum on SSM. Which, in Maryland -- at least IMHO -- will be a toss up. We'll see how it plays out when the cards fall but Gansler has gone "all in" for same-sex marriage.
ReplyDeleteBut his argument is ridiculous. "‘Only a marriage between a man and a woman is valid’ in Maryland" pretty much covers ever marriage, regardless of which state it was performed in.
I'll see his all-in bet, and raise.
None of what you all say contradicts my point: the AG's opinion doesn't illegitimately ignore DOMA, because DOMA has no bearing on whether or not states can decide for themselves to recognize same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions. This is true regardless of however politically motivated or poorly reasoned it was. Op-Ed wins points for being the most deliberately obtuse, since I pointed out myself that the opinion wasn't legally binding. (In case he still doesn't get it, obviously if DOMA doesn't prevent state policies to recognize out-of-state SSMs, it's not going to prevent nonbinding legal opinions supporting those policies).
ReplyDeleteax: ...DOMA has no bearing on whether or not states can decide for themselves to recognize same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions.
ReplyDeleteTrue, it has no bearing on whether or not they can, but it has bearing on whether or not they must. A legislature's allowing them would be an example of the former, and DOMA would have no bearing on that. But for a judge or AG to claim that they must be allowed is legally dishonest, even if such a ruling is not legally binding.
I've never really understood the constitutionality of DOMA. I mean, in Iowa now, marriage is marriage -- the marriage license doesn't specify that the marriage in question is a gay marriage or a straight marriage. So how is it that Maryland can decide to recognize only some of Iowa's marriage licenses, but not all of them? And would it be acceptable for Maryland, just for simplicity's sake, to stop recognizing ALL of Iowa's marriage licenses?
ReplyDeleteWhat makes marriage, marriage, in Iowa?
ReplyDelete* * *
Em, are you also commenting here under the moniker, Emma? If yes, please pick one moniker to use, thanks.
Yup, same person. Got so used to using my different email addresses to try to get around the censorship at NOM that I forgot which one I'd used here first. My utmost apologies.
ReplyDeleteAs for Iowa, well, I would say their Supreme Court.