Skip to main content

View Diary: Refusing a woman a license in her wife's name. We're winning, but bigoted idiocy continues (107 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Wasn't this issue decided by the Supremes a (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lgmcp, Chacounne

    while ago on the issue of multiracial marriages?

    "I believe more women should carry guns. I believe armed women will make the world a better place. Women need to come to think of themselves not as victims but as dangerous." Anna Pigeon

    by glorificus on Mon Dec 10, 2012 at 04:16:18 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  No, not exactly (0+ / 0-)

      The Supremes said bans on multiracial marriage were unconstitutional (Loving v. Virginia, 1967 or thereabouts).

      The standard rule (for 200+ years) has been that states are NOT required to honor each others' marriage laws, because of strongly-felt differences on first-cousin, uncle-neice, and other configurations that some states consider incestuous and others consider just fine. So I doubt very much that you'd get a ruling saying a state that opposes gay marriage has to honor them anyway.

      I DO think you might get a ruling saying that a state has to accept photo ID / proof of identity from another state and the Social Security Administration, and can't arbitrarily decide which former documents it's going to privilege.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site