🚀 go-pugleaf

In article 
<Pine.SOL.3.91.960312112338.5223A-100000@spot.Colorado.EDU>,
   Mike Mills <mills@spot.Colorado.EDU> wrote:
>On 12 Mar 1996, Jill Lundquist wrote:
>
>> Given that this is how I understand the state of the laws, I
>> don't get how this bill would change the status quo for 
marriage
>> in Colorado unless Hawaii legalizes same-sex marriage, in 
which
>> case, of course, Colorado would refuse to recognize such
>> unions.  But if the Hawaiian case were dropped tomorrow, what
>> would change in this state?  It already is not legal to marry
>> two women or two men in Colorado, as in the rest of the US.  
Does
>> this bill have ramifications outside what happens in Hawaii?
>
>No, it does not.  It only came up because it looks likely that 
the Hawaii 
>Supreme Court will order Hawaii to give marriage licenses to 
same-sex 
>couples.  Given that every state recognizes marriages performed 
in every 
>other state, Colorado would have to recognize these couples as 
married 
>absent a Colorado law stating otherwise.
>
>Two addenda are that such a Colorado law is probably 
unconsitutional, and 
>that Hawaii may well amend its constitution to prohibit same-sex 
>marriages.  The US Supreme Court ruled many years ago that the 
Full Faith 
>and Credit clause of the US Constitution requires that all 
states 
>recognize the marriage licenses of all others.  This came up 
because many 
>states refused to recognized interracial marriages.  But the 
>Colorado law could not be tested in court unless some other 
state (such 
>as Hawaii) legalizes same-sex marriages.  That may not happen, 
as an 
>amendment to the Hawaii constitution would prevent it.  Further, 
the 
>Republican congress could well pass a federal law banning 
same-sex 
>marriages in all states.
>
	However, Colorado has a provision where the governor can 
request judicial review prior to signing a bill into law, to 
determine whether the law is constitutional.  The ruling cited 
above related to interracial marriages would probably apply here. 
I'm personally convinced that the full faith and credit 
provisions of the US Constitution would bar colorado from 
refusing to recognize any marriage from elsewhere.  After all, 
the age where marriage is permitted without parental consent 
varying from state to state, yet married people are married in 
their home state when they elope and then return home, divorced 
people stay divorced if they head off to a state without a 
waiting period, get the divorce, and return home, etc.
	And if for some reason full faith and credit doesnt 
apply here, I can think of all sorts of novel ways to make it not 
apply elsewhere.  For instance, imagine if the San Francisco 
Board of Supervisors were to enact the following: "No license, 
including motor vehicle, marriage, or professional certification, 
issued in any state which prohibits recognition of same sex 
marriages, shall be valid for any purpose, within the city limits 
of San Francisco."  A Coloradan driving in SF could be pulled 
over for driving without a license.  If full faith and credit can 
be made to not apply in Denver, it can be made to not apply 
anywhere. 
	Basicly, our beloved legislature is beset with the notion 
that it has to solve every problem imaginable, whether it exists 
or not.  Someone the other day referred to this bill as a 
solution in search of a problem.
> 
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
-=-=-=-=
> "I'm not going to sit at your table and watch you eat with 
nothing on my 
>  plate, and call myself a diner.  Sitting at the table doesn't 
make you a 
>                / \    diner....  Being here in America doesn't 
make you
>  mike mills   (o-o)   an American." -Malcolm X, Asbury Park, 
1963
> 
-----------o00-(_)-00o-------------------------------------------
--------
>