International Skeptics Forum - View Single Post - Activist Judge Overturns Iowa AntiGay Marriage Law

linusrichard · 5th April 2009, 08:00 PM

Originally Posted by Random

Don't think there has been a case yet, but it is only a matter of time. Once it hits the courts, it will be very difficult to argue that a law that says states may ignore contracts from other states is constitutional. On the other hand, Bush vs Gore showed that the US Supreme Court is not immune to fitting legal arguments to a preferred outcome.

There oughtta be a law that says that a law called the "Defense of Marriage Act" can't be used to invalidate a legal marriage. Oh well.

On a more serious note, this is one reason I hate referring to marriage as a contract. Yes, it's like a contract in some respects. Yes, it is sometimes treated like a contract. But there are several reasons why it doesn't make sense to call it a contract. And in this case, if you treat marriage as a contract, you eliminate any constitutional problem with giving full faith and credit to another state's marriage, since there is no constitutional problem in general with a state refusing to give effect to a contract or contract provision that would be valid in another state.

5th April 2009, 08:00 PM	#89
linusrichard Master Poster Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 2,710	Originally Posted by Random Don't think there has been a case yet, but it is only a matter of time. Once it hits the courts, it will be very difficult to argue that a law that says states may ignore contracts from other states is constitutional. On the other hand, Bush vs Gore showed that the US Supreme Court is not immune to fitting legal arguments to a preferred outcome. There oughtta be a law that says that a law called the "Defense of Marriage Act" can't be used to invalidate a legal marriage. Oh well. On a more serious note, this is one reason I hate referring to marriage as a contract. Yes, it's like a contract in some respects. Yes, it is sometimes treated like a contract. But there are several reasons why it doesn't make sense to call it a contract. And in this case, if you treat marriage as a contract, you eliminate any constitutional problem with giving full faith and credit to another state's marriage, since there is no constitutional problem in general with a state refusing to give effect to a contract or contract provision that would be valid in another state.