Fema Employment - Should states have to provide full marriage benefits to homosexuals that are married outside of their state?

Should states have to provide full marriage benefits to homosexuals that are married outside of their state?

Federal law says your state must honor marriages from all states. ALBANY, N.Y. - Opposition is forming against Gov. David Paterson's directive to state agencies to recognize gay marriages legally performed in other states and countries. The Rev. Duane Motley of New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms says the Democratic governor is circumventing the Legislature and courts and slapping New Yorkers in the face. Motley says granting government benefits to gay couples will come at a cost to the state even as Paterson calls for cuts in spending because of looming deficits. Motley says Paterson shouldn't force the state to recognize gay marriages when they remain illegal in New York. Paterson is directing agencies to recognize gay marriages performed legally elsewhere when granting state employment and other benefits. Is denying rights for budgetary reasons a valid point? Could that lead to: "I'm not going to let you vote because ballots cost too much." gcbtrading: While I'm not sure of the exact clause that makes a marriage in one state valid in another, I take it to be common sense. For example, people get divorced in states other than the ones they got married in. That wouldn't be possible if states didn't recognize marriages from other states. Also, it would create situations where people where breaking the law. Married people who moved to another state couldn't claim married status on their taxes or they'd be breaking the law by doing so. gcbtrading: You are correct. The public policy exception to the "full faith and credit" clause basically says that states don't have to allow something that is not legal in their state. Thank you for getting me to correct myself. Legally speaking, I'd have to say until NY passes a law for same-sex marriages, they shouldn't provide the benefits. It would be a slap in the face of gays that are already living there.

Public Comments

If they have to provide them to heterosexual couples married outside the state, then yes. EQUAL RIGHTS. Why is that so hard to understand???
No. In my opinion they are lucky to have been granted marriage status but they must function like any other couple!
Yes, "Equal protection under the Law" has to actually have meaning if it is to be a viable concept of our nation.
Since I don't have children, can I not pay taxes that benefit married couples with children then?
No! States should not be providing any marriage benefits to anyone!! As its a church and state conflict! Marriage is a religious concept!! ""Equal protection under the Law" They have these a man can marry any women and a women can marry any man. And its illegal for any man to marry any man or any women to marry any women. Sounds like equal protection to me
While I think they should.... you are wrong that Federal Law says your state must honor marriages from all states.
I think that the "full faith and credit" clause of the Constitution should require states to recognize marriages from other states, no matter what the couple looks like.
I don't see why any state has an OBLIGATION to recognize any thing done in another state. Just because they do for hetro couples, does not mean they MUST for homo couples. If the poeple of a state have made the decision that a certain act is NOT going to be recognized.... what difference does it make that another state does??? PA allows people to carry concealed weapons... neighboring Maryland does NOT. PA residents can NOT carry their guns if they come to Maryland. It's the same thing....
Wrong on a couple of accounts. Gay Marriage is a state by state issue and other states don't have to recognize anything including your drivers license if they don't want to. Second what Marriage benefits do they have to grant and how can California force Ohio to grant them.
NO!!!!!Marriage is between a man and a woman
I think you should focus on the divorce rate rather than on the fact that the only people who want to get married these days are gay. There was once a law which prohibited inter racial marriage. That went the way of the horse and buggy, and eventually, a gay person's right to marry will prevail. I'll never understand why the extreme right is so threatened by this.
Interesting question! Does fed. law really say that?? But WHERE? I'd like to read it myself, I'd appreciate a reference if you know it. Perhaps they should all look at how Mass. is doing with their marriage situation--I believe I heard that it is not making a significant impact on insurance benefits. Then, too, they should consider that Gays in the US make a HIGHER MEDIAN INCOME than the working population as a whole--so the states will be getting more tax revenues that way. It's foolish to drive them out of their states to more tolerant states that allow gay marriages--seems like the tolerant states are reaping the benefits from tax-paying gays.
Yes, states should provide benefits in such situations. This is not merely a federal law. The Constitution of the United Statesrequires all states to grant full recognition and reciprocity to any contracts, etc. made in other states, regardless of the laws within the state. Filure to grant benefits is a clear violation of that Constitutional standard. Paterson knows this--he's merely following the law. Motley is by his own admission just one more bigoted member of the religious right/neoconservtives who keep trying to force their intolerant religious beliefs on everyone else.
Did I just see someone compare gay marriage to a concealed weapon? Here is my take on it. If you're a state that refuses to recognize one marriage that is legal, then you shouldn't recognize any legal marriage that didn't take place in your state. This is not a theocracy. Yet. Your religious morals should not spill over into your state or federal governments laws. If you don't like it, move to a theocracy. Or pool your funds and buy an island with all your brethren with the same cultlike mentality. What? Telling good religious conservatives to leave the country if they don't like the laws???? But, but.... THAT'S WHAT WE TELL LIBERALS WHO DON'T LIKE US TRYING TO CHANGE CIVIL LIBERTY LAWS!!!! HOW DARE YOU! None of you seem to realize something. Let's look at bans on gay marriage. Since it's not legal in most places, companies have started offering benefits to domestic partners, both homosexual and heterosexual. What does that mean? That means straight couples aren't going to bother getting married either, as they're being offered all this stuff under domestic partnership laws. Oh, we won't let gays marry, but let's make domestic partnership laws to protect them. Which also protects straight couples who "live in sin". So by not letting gays and lesbians marry, you're also helping to promote immorality among straight couples who want an easy out without a divorce should they get bored of having sex with each other.
So, should common law marriages that are recognized in other States be also recognized? No, it's just an other political hot potato that the Dem's really shouldn't be pushing this close to the general election.
Teeknoo got it right .It's a full faith and credit issue that the states really has no say about. If the homophobes wanted to a ban gay marriage so badly they should have started by making heterosexual marriage damned near impossible to do. Since for all intents and purposes a marriage license is the easiest of all licenses to get due to the fact that it only has the bare minimum of requirements >{be 16, have 40 bucks , and one person must have a penis and the other person must have a vagina >and that's it ] for the State to arbitrarily decide to add a sexual orientation condition to an unconditional license is a violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment The haters have got to realize that they are a back eddy in the flow of human rights and although they will drown a lot of innocent people in the process ,inevitably the haters will lose and eventually all people will be granted the rights that the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them to