FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W94833462> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W94833462 abstract "This paper addresses the age-old problem of interstate marriage recognition, raised anew by the legalization of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts. The problem, in a nutshell, is whether and when a state should recognize a marriage validly celebrated elsewhere when its own laws would have prohibited the marriage from taking place. Non-uniform marriage laws and the conflicts they engender are not new. To the contrary, states historically disagreed about many aspects of domestic relations laws, and in particular about marriage prohibitions. Conflicts arose when couples married in one state and then sought recognition of their union in a state that would have prohibited them from marrying - whether because they moved to a new state, had contracted an marriage in another state in violation of their home state's laws, or had some transient contact with a state to which validity of their marriage was relevant. Those conflicts were resolved, by and large, according to principles of comity, which were reflected in the established rules governing conflict of laws. Those rules dictated that states should generally recognize marriages that were valid where celebrated unless doing so interfered with an important public policy or interest of the destination state. This place of celebration rule was subject to both categorical and semi-categorical exceptions. Fifteen years ago, one might have applied this rule and its exceptions to a hypothetical situation involving same-sex marriage in Massachusetts and made the following predictions: a same-sex marriage from one state would certainly be recognized if it was celebrated by a couple who legitimately resided in Massachusetts and later moved to another state; an evasive same-sex marriage might also be recognized in some states, though not as predictably so; and particular incidents of such a marriage might be recognized for limited purposes like inheritance rights in many states, even if the right to cohabit within the state as a married couple was not. The landscape, however, has completely changed. In response to a fear that Hawaii might legalize same-sex marriage in the mid-1990s, Congress enacted the Defense of Marriage Act defining marriage for federal purposes to exclude same-sex marriage and giving states the power to deny recognition to same-sex marriages. More than forty states expressly exercised it by adopting statutes or constitutional amendments to preclude courts from authorizing or recognizing same-sex marriages. These enactments were all based on the assumption that the Full Faith and Credit Clause compels one state to recognize marriages from other states regardless of their own laws or policies. The Full Faith and Credit Clause, however, has never been understood to have that effect. To the contrary, states have always had the right to refuse recognition to out-of-state marriages. Thus, while states were busy protecting themselves from compelled recognition, they lost the right of voluntary recognition, a right exercised considerably more often, historically, than the right to deny recognition. Principles of comity and the portability of marriage have been sacrificed in this process, and the complexity of the analysis that courts have traditionally undertaken has been short-circuited in favor of an unflinching rule of blanket non-recognition. The paper reconsiders the traditional approach to marriage recognition against the current same-sex marriage landscape. It examines whether, under conventional principles of interstate marriage recognition, states that have enacted barriers to recognition have done so successfully. It also examines the question of recognition in the states without any affirmative barrier." @default.
• W94833462 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W94833462 creator A5000464346 @default.
• W94833462 date "2005-10-31" @default.
• W94833462 modified "2023-09-23" @default.
• W94833462 title "Resurrecting Comity: Revisiting the Problem of Non-Uniform Marriage Laws" @default.
• W94833462 hasPublicationYear "2005" @default.
• W94833462 type Work @default.
• W94833462 sameAs 94833462 @default.
• W94833462 citedByCount "1" @default.
• W94833462 countsByYear W948334622015 @default.
• W94833462 crossrefType "posted-content" @default.
• W94833462 hasAuthorship W94833462A5000464346 @default.
• W94833462 hasConcept C11413529 @default.
• W94833462 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W94833462 hasConcept C161191863 @default.
• W94833462 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W94833462 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W94833462 hasConcept C2776949292 @default.
• W94833462 hasConcept C2777855551 @default.
• W94833462 hasConcept C2778490220 @default.
• W94833462 hasConcept C33923547 @default.
• W94833462 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W94833462 hasConcept C48103436 @default.
• W94833462 hasConcept C62100270 @default.
• W94833462 hasConceptScore W94833462C11413529 @default.
• W94833462 hasConceptScore W94833462C144024400 @default.
• W94833462 hasConceptScore W94833462C161191863 @default.
• W94833462 hasConceptScore W94833462C17744445 @default.
• W94833462 hasConceptScore W94833462C199539241 @default.
• W94833462 hasConceptScore W94833462C2776949292 @default.
• W94833462 hasConceptScore W94833462C2777855551 @default.
• W94833462 hasConceptScore W94833462C2778490220 @default.
• W94833462 hasConceptScore W94833462C33923547 @default.
• W94833462 hasConceptScore W94833462C41008148 @default.
• W94833462 hasConceptScore W94833462C48103436 @default.
• W94833462 hasConceptScore W94833462C62100270 @default.
• W94833462 hasLocation W948334621 @default.
• W94833462 hasOpenAccess W94833462 @default.
• W94833462 hasPrimaryLocation W948334621 @default.
• W94833462 hasRelatedWork W1484495958 @default.
• W94833462 hasRelatedWork W1533010936 @default.
• W94833462 hasRelatedWork W208178488 @default.
• W94833462 hasRelatedWork W2269266934 @default.
• W94833462 hasRelatedWork W2587633830 @default.
• W94833462 hasRelatedWork W2770597728 @default.
• W94833462 hasRelatedWork W3121698558 @default.
• W94833462 hasRelatedWork W3123099977 @default.
• W94833462 hasRelatedWork W3123954810 @default.
• W94833462 hasRelatedWork W3124351073 @default.
• W94833462 hasRelatedWork W3124369651 @default.
• W94833462 hasRelatedWork W3124998576 @default.
• W94833462 hasRelatedWork W3125082885 @default.
• W94833462 hasRelatedWork W3125248948 @default.
• W94833462 hasRelatedWork W3125760162 @default.
• W94833462 hasRelatedWork W3125972036 @default.
• W94833462 hasRelatedWork W3126066435 @default.
• W94833462 hasRelatedWork W3122227882 @default.
• W94833462 hasRelatedWork W3123776385 @default.
• W94833462 hasRelatedWork W3125656750 @default.
• W94833462 isParatext "false" @default.
• W94833462 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W94833462 magId "94833462" @default.
• W94833462 workType "article" @default.