What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgiving

Status
Not open for further replies.
BassAle said:
Would that have been an acceptable solution for interracial marriage? Alabama doesn't have to allow it, but if an already married couple moves to Alabama they get to stay married? Meanwhile their neighbors, who also happen to be an interracial couple, can't get married without first traveling to some other state that recognizes it?

Just stop joe. You're an idiot.
Click to expand...

Age of consent to marry varies from State to State. When Harry, who is 21, legally marries 15 year old Sally in the State of Hawaii and then moves to Jersey City, he's still legally married, despite what the State of New Jersey may think about it.

If he met Sally in Atlantic City, he'd have to wait until she's 16 if he can get parental consent or 18 if not.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

joecct said:
Age of consent to marry varies from State to State. When Harry, who is 21, legally marries 15 year old Sally in the State of Hawaii and then moves to Jersey City, he's still legally married, despite what the State of New Jersey may think about it.

If he met Sally in Atlantic City, he'd have to wait until she's 16 if he can get parental consent or 18 if not.
Click to expand...

Yet we saw states that were specifically passing laws that would violate that same Full Faith and Credit clause found in the US Constitution that they'd always been happy to honor prior to the push for homosexual marriage. It's either bigoted or allowing religion to dictate law to the irreligious. Regardless of the answer, it's not acceptable.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top