LeCharivari

Becasue mariage has also religious implications and deals with morals in the individual memberstates the ECHR leaves it up to the memberstates. Traditionally the ECHR will not touch that subject but leave it to the member states. The same goes for instance with regards to pornography, where member states have great liberty to decide for themselves what is allowed and what not.

A Civil Union or how you will call that is however a new concept and is a purely judicial construction, not a moral/religious one. As a result laws regarding this concept must be in accordence with the European Convention on Human Rights.

In some countries the civil union was/is a construction to allow a kind of official union just like marriage between people of the same sex in the first place, and since then some countries have taken the step to allow same-sex marriage.

As far as the ECHR is concerned I don't think its really about what's been done "traditionally" but about jurisdiction and what Greece said their civil unions were for..

Greece's argument was that "the legislature's intention had been to enhance the legal protection of children born outside marriage", which the ECHR didn't see as being a valid reason to exclude same-sex couples from such a relationship as including them would not have affected that - " the Court was not convinced that the attainment through the legislation on civil unions of the goals referred to presupposed excluding same-sex couples from its scope". Had they put forward an alternative argument on moral grounds the ECHR judgement clearly indicates that the outcome may have been different.

http://www.fidh.org/en/europe/greece/14222-european-court-of-human-rights-greek-civil-unions-law-only-for

Many people (particularly gays and above all gay couples in such relationships) see civil unions as being far more than "a purely judicial construction" giving them equal technical and legal rights to opposite-sex couples - that can be established purely by recognition of de-facto relationships. I don't know of any gays (certainly none I am aware of here, however much we may disagree on some issues, and regardless of whether they see civil unions as an end in themselves or just a transitory step to marriage for gay couples) who see that either as the aim of civil unions or as acceptable. Civil unions recognise that gay couples are just as entitled to live together in moral, acceptable, stable, loving and physical relationships as anyone else, and that is what they are about and what makes them FAR more than just "a purely judicial construction".

Thanks, LeC. Being English, I thought they were the same! But then we always were accused of being insular.

In hindsight it may have been more accurate for me to say that there are probably as many versions of civil unions as there are versions of marriage (at least in comparison to the number of countries concerned).

With only one exception world-wide, as far as I am aware, all countries that recognise same-sex relationships also recognise that all other countries' such relationships are the full equal of their own, regardless of the terminology used either at home or abroad, so to all intents and purposes (with that exception) they generally are the same. The problem if they didn't recognise them as the same would be that a same-sex couple with a civil union from one country who go to a country that only recognises same-sex marriage (not civil unions) and who wanted to have their relationship recognised there would have to get divorced first before they could be re-married under that country's laws, which would be a bit bizarre.

(Within the EU the only "odd-man-out" is France with it's PCS, but that is really a complete alternative to marriage rather than either a civil marriage or a civil union.)

Indeed. Mister Tatchell's take on the matter:

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/peter-g-tatchell/commonwealth-homophobia_b_4274657.html?utm_hp_ref=uk

I am far from an unqualified Tatchell fan, but in this instance he's spot on - even understating things.

As far as I can make out there may be up to 19 categories of "union" (EU only!) as it varies from country to country. In the UK Civil Partnerships are identical in all ways to civil marriages, in other countries they are nearly the same but differ in terms of other associated rights or formalities such as adoption or divorce, while in others such as France they have marked differences. In some ways its a bit like saying that "marriage" means the same thing everywhere, while the reality is that it confers different rights and responsibilities in different countries.

The ECHR ruling seems to have muddied the waters even further, saying that civil unions or any "new" sorts of unions for couples must be open to same-sex couples (but not necessarily opposite-sex couples?), while "marriages" are a separate issue.

A same-sex marriage bill was just rejected in NSW by a vote of 21 - 19 as the premier, Barry O'Farrell, seems to have lost his nerve and taken the easy way out despite earlier saying that he would support the bill. He ended up voting against it on the basis that it was a decision for Australia, not one State, so hoping to please all sides ... hopefully he has ended up pleasing none and will get voted out for being a wimp as a result.

its a pity as although it may not necessarily have survived a high court challenge, as the ACT act may not, it would be another prod to the federal government to have a vote on the issue which looks unlikely to happen with this government. It would make little difference practically as de-facto same-sex couples already have similar rights to married couples but it would be nice to formalise things and get into the 21st century.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/nov/14/same-sex-marriage-bill-defeated

It does say "Uganda has one of the most homophobic climates in Africa including draconian laws". Reading further, it sounds a most horrific place on earth to be for a gay person. So I ask the question why would a gay person who only came out as a gay after his 40th wedding anniversary, choose to stay there, let alone allow anything incriminating to be on the laptop?

I hope that he gets out AND leaves the country.... in one piece!

He was there on holiday with his Ugandan boyfriend ... but I agree with you, that making videos and storing them on his laptop was not the wisest thing to do, although we can all be wise with the benefit of hindsight.

No reflection on you whatsoever, but I can only repeat what I have said elsewhere ... that there seems to be an inordinate amount of interest in the plight of gays elsewhere and those who are "like us" or "our friend" , but comparatively little interest in that of the hundreds of thousands of African gays who do not have the option of living elsewhere. Uganda is not only a member of the Commonwealth but also hosted the Commonwealth Local Government Forum this year , without significant protest.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/ugandas-anti-gay-bill-causes-commonwealth-uproar/article4196948/

In a controversial decision earlier this month the European Court of Human Rights ruled that Greece could not restrict the Civil Unions it introduced in 2008 to heterosexual couples, and that homosexual couples also had to be entitled to register Civil Unions in Greece as this discrimination was a violation of the European Convention on Human Rights.

While the gay/human rights argument is clear (Article 14 of the ECHR) the issues of both respect for "family life" (Article 8) and national sovereignty are questionable - according to the judgement it seems that any definition of "marriage" is up to individual countries but that as soon as they introduce another category (civil unions, civil partnerships, etc) then the ECHR has ultimate authority over that category. Rather curiously, although the ECHR noted that of the 19 Council of Europe states with civil union type legislation only two (Greece and Lithuania) excluded same-sex couples they made no mention that many more, including the UK, Hungary, Ireland and Germany, exclude opposite-sex couples.

In Greece's case they have, so far, simply ignored the ruling and it looks as if they are likely to continue to do so; given the current rise of Greek nationalism and rising antipathy to the EEC (and the Euro) generally it looks as if this will be far more of an issue of sovereignty in Greece than one of gay rights and it is possible that the Greeks may simply repeal the law and revert to being a "marriage-only" state to avoid having to recognise same-sex relationships.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/182580581/Grand-Chamber-Judgment-Vallianatos-and-Others-v-Greece

The issue of a European trend towards civil unions as a secular alternative to marriage rather than an option intended primarily for same-sex couples is questionable at best. In most European states with civil union legislation they are either clearly intended primarily for or only open to same-sex couples, and in many cases they are also not technically "equal" to marriage. There is also an equally questionable trend towards greater recognition of the place of religion and closer ties between church and state - in Germany, for example, since 2010 church/religious marriages may now be preformed before a civil marriage registration and Germany still continues to raise mandatory additional taxes on Catholics, Protestants and Jews which it collects on behalf of the organisations and pays to them in Germany (hence the complaints about the "Bishop of Bling"); Other European countries from Iceland to Italy also support religions through taxes, although they are not additional taxes (a proportion goes to secular welfare organisations) and many other religions are included on a pro-rata basis (although Muslims are seldom included while Buddhists are, which seems rather discriminatory), so any trend towards secualrism in Europe could be as much a question of finance as of faith.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-19699581

(Please note that the topic is specifically about civil unions in the EU, nowhere else)

"Homosexual men showed relatively wider and shorter faces, smaller and shorter noses, and rather massive and more rounded jaws"

Sounds like Cro-Magnon man - next it'll be phrenology.

Given the sample size (40 gay / 40 straight Czech men) its hardly conclusive. I've always maintained that this stereotyping really is impractical and that we're no different to anyone else (the good, the bad and evidently the ugly) except in our sexual preference, and that the hairdresser/fashion designer/fem type is simply the more noticeable.

At the British Embassy's recent Remembrance Day service I realised (for the first time, as I just hadn't thought about it before) that the most senior present in the Army, RAF, Police and the Security Service, by quite a considerable margin, as well as the most decorated, were all openly gay. I don't mean that they wore rainbow poppies, just that a couple had Civil Partners and while it wasn't broadcast neither was it hidden, but there really wasn't anything that could have been taken as any sort of indicator or common denominator, particularly when all present were reasonably similarly dressed.

..... and none of them had massive jaws, etc.

(I should add that I am sure this was anything but typical, and that I didn't know anyone there from the Navy)

There are no real "gay bars" as such, although there are a few very loud and equally expensive gay night clubs in Wanchai/LanKwaiFong/Central - if you're budgeting 4,000 baht a night for your hotel don't even think about it.

Hotel budget at 4,000 baht a night? About the minimum, not including breakfast, unless you go on a package tour which could include some meals.

Things to see and do? Take the Star Ferry (best and cheapest views of Hong Kong harbour @ 10 baht), walk up Nathan Road (free), take a tram around Central, take the Peak tram up the Peak and get the best views over Hong Kong (weather permitting), have dinner at the floating Jumbo restaurant in Aberdeen for the experience but not the food (around 2,000 baht), have afternoon tea in the Peninsula (dress code, around 1,000 baht), go to Temple Street market (free) or if you've got time go to Lantau island and take the cable car, or go to Disneyland or Ocean Park or even Macao.

When you arrive at the airport you can pick up plenty of official tourist information.

If you're going to the Thai Consulate for a visa make sure you've got all the right paperwork, and even for a tourist visa you'll have to go back the next day to collect it.

The topic is about Gay marriage and civil partnerships. One is recognized by all states and the other isn't. And yes we could go on forever because you continue to pick out individual laws from individual states that don't apply to a marriage. You also decide th cite cases from very far back, but then wish to argue about the age of majority.

Your knowledge of the US legal system is sorely lacking.

DEFINITELY my final post in this thread.

Gay marriage is NOT "recognized by all states" - this is totally incorrect, unless the National Conference on State Legislatures is also wrong.

Same-sex marriage is legal in 14 States (15 including Hawaii), recognised federally, but prohibited and consequently NOT recognised 35 States (6 by statute, 29 by constitution). The National Conference of State Legislatures is definitive on that point: http://www.ncsl.org/research/human-services/same-sex-marriage-overview.aspx#1 and Section 2 of DOMA (upheld by the SCotUS ruling) confirmed their right to do so under the US Constitution if any such confirmation was necessary.

As 9 of the 29 States whose constitutions ban same-sex marriage do not ban civil unions, civil unions are no more (or less) "recognized" at State level but at least they are only prohibited in 26 States, not 35.

As I have already openly admitted, I have little personal knowledge of the US legal system and I have never claimed any. My "knowledge of the US legal system" is based entirely on that of the leading US experts such as those I have quoted, citing the exact same cases they do.

You disagree with them, as Jingthing apparently does. You may well be right and they may all be wrong, but since I have been unable to find even one qualified reference to support your view all I or anyone else in a similar position can do is compare their proven knowledge, experience, qualifications and recognition with yours and be influenced accordingly.

Hua Hin is a great idea for your gay trips - I am sure your customers will give your research the credit it deserves.

It may be worth adding that the Consulate is on the 8th floor and normally packed, so take a book and don't expect to get a seat unless you are lucky .... and don't expect to be able to sweet talk the staff!

A marriage does not have to have been illegal to be annulled. The biggest reason for annulments is because the Catholic Church doesn't recognize divorce. Dissolving a marriage depends on the laws, but if you are domiciled in a state, that state has jurisdiction to annul the marriage. The home state would probably be more amenable to annulling a marriage that didn't meet their legal requirements to begin with.

Years ago, one of the pivotal factors in allowing an annulment was whether the marriage had been consummated.

When I was young the age for marriage for a girl was 16 and for a boy it was 18. Girls could marry in that state at the age of 16 without parental consent. Boys, on the other hand, had to wait until they were 18 to marry without parental consent. (The overall age of majority was 18 for girls and 21 for males).

Now if two 17 year olds ran off to a neighboring state where at 17 they could marry and they met the residency requirement to marry (and that is a big ISSUE because often people are not legally residents of the state for quicky marriages and divorces) the marriage is legal in that state and would be recognized by all other states. The difficulty when they return to their home state is that one of them is not at the age of majority. So, you have two conflicting laws. One about marriage and one about what rights a parent may/may not have over legal affairs of a minor child.

States had to incorporate a lot of regulations into marriage laws, such as the automatic or presumed emancipation of a minor when they married.

If the two refused to go along with an annulment, then the court would have to decide based on the merits of the case. Most young people are impulsive and they probably don't have the resources to resist family pressure. But, if no one contests the marriage, it is legal and it is recognized. If they live in a different state until he turns 18, it will be legal.

In the US this is, in part, what I think JT has been talking about with regard to the situation between marriage and civil unions. There is a huge amount of legal precedent that exists and, although there are differences from state to state, there is an agreement about what a marriage means legally.

Getting anything in place that would provide the equality for civil unions in the 50 states that marriage does would be almost impossible and it would take many, many years. In part because of the religious involvement, when the word 'marriage' is invoked, it has additional strength. The words "What God hath joined together, let no man put asunder", resonates rather loudly in the US.

This could go on almost indefinitely, so I see little point in continuing to correct some of the supposed "facts" given in this thread after this post, so I'm backing out of this thread after this post.

"the Catholic Church doesn't recognize divorce"

Incorrect. The Catholic Church DOES recognize divorce and anyone who is divorced is still free to participate fully in the Church, receive the sacraments, etc. The problem comes only if they re-marry without a Decree of Invalidity, which is issued by a Church Tribunal (Church Court) and has NOTHING to do with civil annulments or divorce; without that they cannot re-marry in a Catholic Church or, technically, receive any sacraments.

"The biggest reason for annulments is because the Catholic Church doesn't recognize divorce."

Incorrect. The most prevalent grounds for civil annulments in the USA is fraud.

A civil annulment has as little relevance or meaning to the Catholic Church as a divorce. Civil divorces and annulments come under Civil Law, while the Catholic Church ONLY recognises Canon Law for the purposes of allowing someone who has been divorced to marry in the Church or to receive sacraments if they marry outside the Church. A Civil annulment would support an application for a Church Decree of Invalidity but it does not replace it, but a divorce serves a similar function and is equally acceptable. Some civil annulments on some grounds, such as those available in Nevada, would not support a Decree of Invalidity in any way.

While grounds for a Decree of Invalidity (for both spouses) are technically similar to some civil annulments, and grounds for an individual Decree are usually only abandonment or one spouse entering holy orders, Decrees of Invalidity are issued almost routinely in the US and well over 99% are approved.

The US has some 6% of the world's Catholics but 60% of the Church's Decrees of Invalidity, making them virtually a technicality in the American Catholic Church, but they have nothing to do with civil annulments.

"Years ago, one of the pivotal factors in allowing an annulment was whether the marriage had been consummated."

Incorrect. It still is one of the few generally accepted grounds for an annulment (and it still is grounds for a Decree of Invalidity) : "An annulment must be based on mental illness, fraud, forced consent, physical incapacity to consummate the marriage, lack of consent to underage marriage or bigamy", although a few States such as Nevada have far wider grounds similar to divorce.

"Now if two 17 year olds ran off to a neighboring state where at 17 they could marry and they met the residency requirement to marry ... the marriage is legal in that state and would be recognized by all other states."

Leaving aside the legality argument, there are now NO SUCH STATES - all States have a minimum age of 18, except Mississippi where it is 21 and Nebraska where it is 19.

"Getting anything in place that would provide the equality for civil unions in the 50 states that marriage does would be almost impossible and it would take many, many years."

Incorrect. The American legal system is based on common law, as the UK system is, not civil law like most of continental Europe, so it is based on precedent and judgement rather than legal codes; consequently a single judgement by a State Supreme Court that set the precedent that civil unions and marriage have the same legal status would apply across the State to ALL marriage laws, just as one by SCOTUS would across the US.

http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=19447

http://www.usmarriagelaws.com/search/united_states/annulment_laws/

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/annulment-vs-divorce-30234.html

http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/LAWSSEAF.cgi?QUERYTYPE=LAWS+&QUERYDATA=$$DOMA9$$@TXDOM0A9+&LIST=LAW+&BROWSER=54724826+&TOKEN=46347301+&TARGET=VIEW

http://www.lasvegasannulment.us/qualifications.php

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P3Y.HTM

http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/470/annulment_nation.aspx#.UoPJ2uLrMp8

http://www.expertlaw.com/library/family_law/annulment.html

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/annulment

http://www.law.berkeley.edu/library/robbins/CommonLawCivilLawTraditions.html

(edited)

There are cases where underage couples went to a neighboring state and married and when they returned to their home state, the marriage was annulled. (The proceedings were initiated by the family). The purpose of the leaving was to circumvent a law and they were not domiciled in the state. Even under these circumstances, courts in the past were hesitant to dissolve the marriage if it had been consummated.

I may have misunderstood you in which case please correct me, but this seems to suggest that "the marriage was annulled" by their home state. As far as I am aware this is impossible as it would give one State authority over another, so the only circumstances in which this could happen would be if the marriage was annulled by the neighbouring (marrying) State.

To have the marriage annulled rather than for the couple to be divorced would mean that the marriage was invalid for some reason - the most likely being that parental consent was required and that it had not been given and the under age couple had falsified their documentation. In that case the marriage would not be valid in any State, including the one where it was registered, so this example has little relevance to inter-State marriage law.

A link may help to clarify this, if it is relevant.

(edited)

Marriage is similar to having a driving license. When you cross the state lines, you might not be considered legal to drive, but you can.

There I agree with you, as the authorities in the links above also agree that "marriage is similar to having a driving license" and this is one of the examples regularly used, but you are using it incorrectly as any out-of-State license which does not meet local requirements is invalid (worthless) - just like some out-of-State marriages.

When you cross State lines with no license at all you can still "drive" physically, but you are breaking the law and can be arrested or charged. Similarly when you cross State lines with a license issued in one State it is only valid in some other States IF the driver meets THAT State's requirements (variously age, number and type of passengers/family, curfew/time of day, etc); anyone who doesn't meet those requirements but who shows what they think is their "valid" driving license from their home State can also be arrested or charged just as if they have no license at all.

The laws vary from State to State, but many apply additional restrictions to out-of-State drivers. One example is New York State:

NYS restricts driving privileges if:

• you are under the age of 18 and have an out-of-state driver license, or
• you are any age and you have an out-of-state learner permit.

You must obey the restrictions of both your home state and the NYS restrictions for learner permits or junior licenses in NYS.

http://www.dmv.ny.gov/license.htm (original "bold")

The only inter-state agreement is the Driver License Compact which (for most States) consolidates driving offences.

A marriage IS similar to a driving licence - one which is valid in one State may be worthless in another.

I'll try to make it relatively simple to understand. A marriage in one state is recognized in all other states. If you have a marriage license, it will produce the same rights/responsibilities as any other marriage license from that state. Marriages are equal.

If someone wants to contest the validity of a marriage they must do so in a court. You have cited cases which have unusual circumstances and none which actually were appealed. Custody/visitation of a child, in one case, which was a Civil Union and where the court had to determine that one of the litigants was actually the parent -- something which does not happen in a marriage. If you are married you are the parent. Only a court order can change that.

With regard to estates, administration of estates, etc. there are lots of variables and a lot of legal encumbrances. Just ask people like Anna Nicole Smith (or her surviving daughter). Property and businesses may come with baggage that effect them legally. Again, a spouse is presumed to have certain rights and only a court of law can change that.

If you have a Civil Union in a state that doesn't recognize civil unions, you are in a whole different ball game and you will have to prove the legitimacy of your union and its legality before you are permitted even limited rights (such as visitation).

If you are married and your spouse is in a hospital and his/her family decide to deny you access, once you show your married, you will be given access (unless there is legal cause to prevent such as attempted murder, spousal abuse etc), but again these are decided by a court and someone has to show just cause why you should be denied those rights, not given those rights, as is the case in other Unions. You have the same rights as any other married person.

You may dig through a lot of laws, but do find those that have wound their way to the Supreme Court. The Anna Nicole Smith case did go to the Supreme Court by the way, but that was a very complex case. You might want to look at cases where a person had multiple marriages as well. Especially if one party had failed to divorce (bigamy) and this is not known to the spouse.

Marriage is similar to having a driving license. When you cross the state lines, you might not be considered legal to drive, but you can.

I'll try to make it equally simple. A marriage in one State is NOT recognized in any other State where it is "contrary to local public policy".

The SCOTUS view is unequivocal in the link I gave ( http://caselaw.lp.fi...l=306&invol=493 ) : "we think the conclusion is unavoidable that the full faith and credit clause does not require one state to substitute for its own statute, applicable to persons and events within it, the conflicting statute of another state, even though that statute is of controlling force in the courts of the state of its enactment with respect to the same persons and events.". Nothing has changed since to change that ruling/view.

The legal and constitutional situation is also described at length in the link I gave ( http://http://www.law.yale....tetestimony.pdf ) which is equally unequivocal and which was expert advice asked for and accepted by the US Senate, which is good enough for me even if you may not agree with it.

Every acknowledged authority I have read agrees with that, as do most who are not authoritative such as the dreaded Wiki. They may all be wrong and you may be right, but in the absence of any reference from any equal authority (or, on second thoughts, any qualified reference at all) to support "your stand" I think I'll go along with those who are recognized experts in this field.

jdinasia, in hindsight I should add that I don't have any objections to your post at all; it's just that reading your thread title I assumed (until I read the article) that he had some "ties with Thailand", possibly on an "anti-gay extremist" level, while there is no such indication in the article. Others may read it differently (and you may have meant it differently), but I wouldn't say that I have "ties" with, say, Macau, just because I have been there on holiday.

Thanks for posting the news item, anyway - at least it shows that Russia takes this sort of "nutter" seriously, that he has already been in jail for 3 years for similar offences (racist rather than homophobic), and that they have strict laws against this type of activity which they enforce.

What "ties with Thailand" ??

This is a wildly misleading title - the only apparent "tie" he has with Thailand are photos of him on a beach in Koh Chang and his having been to Thailand before (reason unknown/unspecified).

The Thai Consulate-General is in Central (Hong Kong Island) opposite the Lippo Centre and the Bank of China Building.

There is no "gay area" as such, and where to stay depends entirely on your budget - do not expect "Thai" prices, even in Chung King Mansions (to be avoided!).

If going for a first time "on a reasonable budget" I would recommend staying somewhere like the Salisbury YMCA Hotel in Tsim Sha Tsui, next to the Peninsula - around $150+ a night, compared to the Peninsula which will be around $1,000 to several thousand. It all depends on what you are going for and what you have to spend. Convenient for the Star Ferry to Hong Kong Island, shopping along Nathan Road and Temple Street, etc.

Don't expect any shopping bargains, except for suits and shirts if you know where to go and have time - Hong Kong gave all that up years ago.

I know all of Hong Kong (Kowloon, Hong Kong Island and the islands, and the New Territories) well, but it all depends on what you want to do and how much you want to spend. Hong Kong, more than anywhere I know, is all about money.

This really isn't "my stand".

The two links and quotes I gave in Post #33 are from two of the leading American legal experts on this. The second was by Professor Lea Brilmayer, America's leading expert on the subject who was asked to advise the Senate's Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Property Rights on interstate jurisdiction and the correct interpretation of the Constitution's Full Faith and Credit Clause in 2004, particularly where legality of out-of-state marriage was concerned .

Her view in that link ( http://www.law.yale.edu/news/4174.htm ) is unequivocal:

"Longstanding precedent from around the country holds that a State need not recognize a marriage entered into in another State with different marriage laws if those laws are contrary to strongly held local public policy."

I respectfully suggest that anyone who thinks that I am "wrong" reads that link or, if they have the time, the full text of her testimony before the Senate Subcommittee which goes into far more detail and specifics ( http://www.law.yale.edu/documents/pdf/News_&_Events/senatetestimony.pdf ), cites cases, judgements and statutes, and where she is equally unequivocal:

"The full faith and credit clause has never been understood to require recognition of marriages entered into in other States that are contrary to local "public policy". The "public policy" doctrine, which is well recognized in conflict of laws, frees a State from having to recognize decisions by other States that offend deeply held local values. One of the contexts in which it has proven particularly important is family law."

.

You will have to give some legal examples of marriages not being upheld. The only ones I am aware of are those where the people married did not meet the legal requirements to marry in the state and thus the marriage could be nullified.

I am afraid you are wrong. Even mixed marriages, which were illegal in a state were recognized if it was a legal marriage in the state where it occurred.

I haven't read all the links, however, I note that the first one concerns DOMA, which has been struck down and where the discussion is about Parental Rights. I fail to see where a marriage was declared 'illegal' or dissolved.

We're talking apples and oranges.

I am not talking about one State dissolving, annuling or nullifying a marriage from another State, or anything to do with immigration and re-settlement. I have never mentioned this as they are not relevant to my point or to post # 18 which I was responding to. I am simply talking about a marriage from one State having no validity and not being recognised in another State where it doesn't meet that State's legal requirements.

To quote from the judgement in my third link: Marriages performed outside the State which offend a strong public policy of the State of domicile will not be recognized as valid in the domiciliary State.

On the three cases/links I gave which you later question:

1: http://www.google.co....56146854,d.bmk

Yes, it concerned a Civil Union not a marriage and at the time some States and the federal government didn't recognise that, but the relevance is the court's view of the "full faith and credit clause".

2: http://scholarship.l...92&context=mulr

That this particular couple were married abroad was completely irrelevant to the judgement in the case.

3: http://www.leagle.co...7083Ariz87_1152

That a totally different law that had no bearing on that case (or the issues here) concerning inter-racial marriages has since been changed has no more relevance than any other laws that have since been changed.

In the first paragraph of the judgement in the link Judge J Smith Gibbons, the presiding Superior Court Judge, states: "The real issue presented on this appeal is whether a marriage between first cousins who are residents of and intend to live in Arizona is void or only voidable when solemnized in a state where such marriage is not prohibited by law." That seems rather different from your view that "the issue was not one of marriage, per se, but of who was the right to be administrator of an estate."

That the case is "very, very dated" hardly matters - the American Constitution and the "full faith and credit" clause are considerably more dated but that doesn't make them any less relevant.

I don't pretend to have any particular knowledge on the subject other than what I have read by those who are in a genuine position to know - I am simply presenting the facts concerning inter-state recognition of out-of-state marriages as they have been put by those in a far better position to know about them than I am. Those experts whom I have quoted and read all say that it is your view ( "That is not true a marriage that is recognized in one state is recognized in all states, even if it is not legal in the state where they reside"), and that of others such as ProThaiExpat, that is wrong.

Scott: So right, its called the "full faith and credit" clause of the US Constitution. Each state is supposed to give"full faith and credit" to each other's laws.

However, in practice it often is not enforced as the laws of the rogue state will control until it is taken to a US Federal Court where it should be ruled unconstitutional, not by State Constitution, but by the US Constitution.

JT: Your question regarding "what happens to civil untions when a state adopts same sex marriage" was answered in California, I believe, when a state court ruled that the civil union, being by its own language "has the same rights as a marriage" that for all intents and purposes is a marriage and the court will treat the civil union as a marriage. Merger may be the concept.

Sorry, again, but any "question regarding "what happens to civil untions when a state adopts same sex marriage" has NOT been answered in California, but is up to individual states to legislate about (see above) and up to individual states to variously "convert" or "transform" civil unions already registered into marriages if or when they pass the appropriate legislation.

How civil unions are "treated" at state level is now irrelevant as it has been decided administratively at federal level (not by SCOTUS or by legislation) that civil unions, however they were originally intended at state level or judged by state courts, are NOT to be treated as a marriage at federal level and are consequently NOT "for all intents and purposes" the same as a marriage. This has particular relevance in Illinois, although it also applies in states where civil unions were only open to same-sex couples, as at the time when the civil unions were introduced those registering them were eligible for and granted a number of federal (IRS) rights which have now been either withdrawn or are no longer granted to anyone registering a civil union, so the Illinois Civil Unions are no longer what they were originally "sold" as.

Any question of whether civil unions were somehow rejected by gays in the US in favour of "any-sex" marriage is really rather a pointless one. They have never been asked nor polled in any way, I have never seen any sort of debate on this in the American "gay press" which would normally be expected, nor as far as I am aware since I have never seen any links to support the view nor have any ever been provided here was any rational consideration ever given to whether civil unions were a quicker transitional way to giving ALL American gays, regardless of where they lived or wanted to live, federal marriage rights prior to country-wide "any-sex" marriage approval. The administration simply made its choice for reasons which have never been made clear by anyone in a position to do anything other than speculate, and it has been accepted. As civil unions had received far less general opposition than any-sex marriage it is quite possible that this could have given many gays equal legal and financial rights earlier, but we will never know - although the time it takes for any-sex marriage to be approved country-wide will be some indication.

Scott: So right, its called the "full faith and credit" clause of the US Constitution. Each state is supposed to give"full faith and credit" to each other's laws.

However, in practice it often is not enforced as the laws of the rogue state will control until it is taken to a US Federal Court where it should be ruled unconstitutional, not by State Constitution, but by the US Constitution.

JT: Your question regarding "what happens to civil untions when a state adopts same sex marriage" was answered in California, I believe, when a state court ruled that the civil union, being by its own language "has the same rights as a marriage" that for all intents and purposes is a marriage and the court will treat the civil union as a marriage. Merger may be the concept.

I am sorry if I appear yet again to be correcting Americans about America, but I am afraid this is also incorrect .

Article 4 Section 1 (aka the "full faith and credit" clause) ONLY refers to "public acts, records, and judicial proceedings", NOT to legislation or public policy, and that anything beyond that is up to "the Congress":

"Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof"

SCOTUS has consistently ruled that the clause is limited in effect where one state's laws conflict with another's and that there is a very clear "public policy exception" which would seem to apply to same-sex marriage:

"While the purpose of that provision was to preserve rights acquired or confirmed under the public acts and judicial proceedings of one state by requiring recognition of their validity in other states, the very nature of the federal union of states, to which are reserved some of the attributes of sovereignty, precludes resort to the full faith and credit clause as the means for compelling a state to substitute the statutes of other states for its own statutes dealing with a subject matter concerning which it is competent to legislate. ....... we think the conclusion is unavoidable that the full faith and credit clause does not require one state to substitute for its own statute, applicable to persons and events within it, the conflicting statute of another state, even though that statute is of controlling force in the courts of the state of its enactment with respect to the same persons and events."

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=306&invol=493

There have also been a number of reasonably definitive and authoritative reviews of the relevance of the clause specifically in a same-sex marriage context by acknowledged experts:

Although the Full Faith and Credit Clause is often assumed by the popular press and some legal commentators to impose a mandatory duty on states to recognize same-sex marriages validly celebrated in another state, this common assumption is clearly false. States have always retained the power to refuse to recognize some out-of-state marriages that violate their expressions of public policy. This has happened with, for example, marriages involving underage spouses or marriages that violate a state's consanguinity rules. Marriages do not stand on the same constitutional footing as litigated judgments. As a result, whether a state chooses to recognize a same-sex marriage celebrated in another state is a function of the recognizing state's law and its conflict-of-laws principles and not a matter of constitutional compulsion.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=899385

Longstanding precedent from around the country holds that a state need not recognize a marriage entered into in another state with different marriage laws if those laws are contrary to strongly held local public policy. The "public policy doctrine," almost as old as this country's legal system, has been applied to foreign marriages between first cousins, persons too recently divorced, persons of different races, and persons under the age of consent. The granting of a marriage license has always been treated differently than a court award, which is indeed entitled to full interstate recognition. Court judgments are entitled to full faith and credit but historically very little interstate recognition has been given to licenses.....

The assumption that there must be a single national definition of marriage --traditional or open-ended -- is mistaken and pernicious. It is mistaken because the existing constitutional framework has long accommodated differing marriage laws. This is an area where the slogan "states rights" not only works relatively well, but also has traditionally been left to do its job. We are familiar with the problems of integrating different marriage laws because for the last 200 years the issue has been left, fairly successfully, to the states. The assumption is pernicious because the winner-takes-all

attitude that it engenders now has social conservatives pushing us down the constitutional-amendment path. For those who see the matter in terms of gay rights, this would be a tragedy. But it would also be a tragedy for those who genuinely favor local autonomy, or even those of us who genuinely favor keeping the constitutional text uncluttered by unnecessary amendments.

http://www.law.yale.edu/news/4174.htm

That is not true a marriage that is recognized in one state is recognized in all states, even if it is not legal in the state where they reside.

If one state says you can must be 18 to marry and the neighboring state says 16, you can cross the border and get married int he neighboring state and it's a done deal in the other state. You do have to meet whatever criteria that state has, such as residency, though.

Why do you think so many people run off to Las Vegas to get married?

I presume you and ProThai Expat are referring to my post #24 ... in which case:

Sorry, but that is NOT correct and my original post (#24) is correct and is supported by any number of references, statutes and the American Law Review (A.L.R.).

If, as in the example I cited, you marry a first cousin in a State where it is legal and the marriage is valid it is NOT necessarily recognised in "all states". It is recognised in some States where those States have so legislated but in other States with no such provision the marriages are void and not recognised and in some of those States sexual relations and/or cohabitation would be a criminal offense.

To be specific, such marriages are NOT recognised for those living in Arizona, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Dakota, Utah, Washington and Wisconsin (and possibly other states which it would take me too long to check) and entering such a marriage to try to circumvent state laws can be an offence itself - and in most of those states such marriages are NOT recognised for out-of-state residents "passing through" either.

There are a number of statute references, but the most relevant (1) goes into considerable detail on the relevance of the "full faith and credit" clause, while the simplest (2) cites case law and the ALR:

The rule that marriages valid where contracted are valid everywhere breaks down completely when the marriage at issue is one which was contracted in evasion of the law of the state in which both parties are domiciled and if it is a marriage which the law of such domicile regards as incestuous or miscegenetic, even though it may not have been so regarded by the law of the state where the ceremony was performed. The state of the authorities with respect to incestuous marriages thus contracted is exhaustively considered in the A.L.R annotation 117 A.L.R. 186 (1938).

Arizona statute law Section 63-108, A.C.A. 1939 (A.R.S. § 25-112) also makes this clear:

Marriages valid by the laws of the place where contracted, are valid in this state; provided, that marriages solemnized in any other state or country by parties intending at the time to reside in this state shall have the same legal consequences and effect as if solemnized in this state, and parties residing in this state can not evade its laws as to marriage by going into another state or country for the solemnization of the marriage ceremony.

This is particularly important concerning the rights and definition of "next of kin" - since these marriages are not valid the supposed/ believed "spouse" is NOT the next of kin and this has been confirmed by state and federal Supreme Court rulings (3) where the "state-legal" next of kin has successfully contested a "state-illegal" spouse's right to inherit.

1: http://www.google.co.th/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CDEQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.glad.org%2Fuploads%2Fdocs%2Fcases%2Fmiller-jenkins-v-miller-jenkins%2F2007-11-07-vermont-supreme-court-brief.pdf&ei=WwuBUq3LI8HTrQea5oGIDw&usg=AFQjCNFfvHcmfTinstE7ANSMuJeiLcmC-g&bvm=bv.56146854,d.bmk

2: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3692&context=mulr

3: http://www.leagle.com/decision/195717083Ariz87_1152

As far as the question of age is concerned it is largely moot, as all states now have THE SAME age requirement of 18, except Mississippi where it is 21. Anyone wanting to get married any younger than that needs parental consent and, in many states, a court order as well.

"Why do (I) think so many people run off to Las Vegas to get married?"

Either because they're misinformed or because there's no waiting period - first cousins and those under 18 without parental consent would have a wasted journey. http://www.wedinvegas.com/wedreq.html

You're an airport .... oh dear.

("airports", for the uninitiated, put "butterflies" and even "helicopters" in the shade)

I hope you're not implying that I'm a promiscuous old slapper

Who said you were old??