*FINALLY* figured it out...

[johnpalmer]

A lot of extremists use the "Dred Scott" decision as a kind of code to talk about the problems with the courts.

Now, the Dred Scott decision was a sad one, but, by the law of the land, it was a necessary one. Slaves were property; leaving a slave state should not deprive you of your property. It puts a bad taste in my mouth to do so much as *write* those words, but that's the way the law was written, and the Dred Scott decision was solid legal reasoning. Painful, but solid.

Now, reading a link about the courts, I finally understand.

The Dred Scott decision said that free states must accept certain laws from other states... if one state declares something right and lawful, other states must declare it lawful, and at least acceptable.

Kind of like saying if you're married in one state, you're married, period.

*THAT* finally clears up a bit of a puzzle that's been niggling at me for a long time.

Comments

Re: now I have not studied that decision

[kightp.livejournal.com]

Andreas, I think you're using a broader definition of "state" than John is; he's talking about US states, which under our somewhat unusual constitution are both sovereign entities and part of the confederation that constitutes the US republic. You're using "state" to mean independent nation-states, yes?

Alas, there are already states in the US which refuse to recognize marriages from other states, if the married people are of the same sex. And others scrambling to get that refusal into law.

I suspected that might be the case

[andreas_schaefer]

(and btw Germany has states and they are not simple provices either ) And here some conservative states appealed to the constitutional court when the civil union for same sex couples was introduced - and lost. As yet it can't be called a marriage because eof the wording in the (national ) constitution : " the 'state' ( law, government, administration) specially protects family and marriage..." to change that wording one would need a 2/3 majority which is not likely to happen over any emotional subject like this.

Still wheather state is a stae (part of a federal system) or a nation-state ( and those are part of a larger system in the European union and/or the UN ) while in the normal course of events "public Acts, Records and judicial Proceedings" of foreign states are accepted there is a limit to those : Things that are legally impossible here would not be accepted . Thus anyone sentenced to death in his home country would have good chances of getting some sort of asylum her because there is no capital punishment in Germany ( I have a feeling that in the case of Osama some way around that would be found and he would end up in the US ) - The idea of states stopping to regard other states wedding certificates as valid is intriguing : Does that mean I can be legally married to Annabel in NY, Bettina in Pennsylvania, Kathrin in Texas and Zenobia in Alaska ? ( and a double dozen others between ). Interesting times for traveling men ( or women ).