A question out of interest for the Americans on here from a Brit. On this side of the pond we are sometimes puzzled by the fact some laws in the US differ depending on what part of the country your in, ie what state. Over here the law is the law wherever you are. I was reading a posting earlier which included reference to how ages of consent / marriage in differ in different states. So got that me wondering, if a young couple in a state with an age of consent at the lower age for the US marry at that age, and then travel or move to a state with an age of consent at the higher age, are they breaking the law?

 

I don’t know the answer to that. I do know that in Alabama it’s illegal to put an ice cream cone in your back pocket.

 

1 word NO

 

Tough concept to understand if you’re not a student of American history. But, a state is actually a country, united through a constitution with 49 other states (countries) which grants limited powers to the federal government.

 

It's legal in Nottingham to shoot a French man with a longbow if he's out after 12
Some bylaws should be upheld

 

Tennessee says that more than 8 women may not live in a house as it is considered a brothel.

 

As you may have guessed, having every State capable of drafting its own differing internal legislation leads to what we Americans call a "fuck-ton" of areas where the specific points of law differ. To get around that and still sort-of live happily in our Federal Republic, States often abide by the rulings and determinations made elsewhere.

An example of this is around marriage law. Some of our states set a hard minimum age. Others don't specify a minimum, but generally limit marriage to the age of majority (18). Some have lower-than-normal limits. Some states allow common-law marriage (where spending enough time living with someone else, representing yourselves as a couple, counts as legally binding for purposes of property / power of attorney / inheritance /etc) - and many do not. But the common factor is that all States will recognize a valid marriage formed in any other State in the Republic. At a Federal level, the US has no registry of marriages, foreign or domestic; if you're married abroad, and come here, that marriage is recognized (so long as it was legal where it happened).

 

First of all, the OP's opening statement: 'A question out of interest for the Americans on here from a Brit' does not really identify where he is from or what laws he is referring to. Is it just England or the entire UK? England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland have their own distinct sets of laws.

I'm not going to make a hobby out of this, but I find it hard to believe that regions and municipalities do not have certain laws that are unique to their own circumstances - but then again, I don't really care.

 

Well its in the title, Unites STATES of America. Each state is allowed to regulate itself provided it abides by the constitution.

 

Question answered, Interest sated, cheers

 

*not_secure_link*www.idiotlaws.com/its-illegal-to-have-a-smelly-cock/

 

We have Federal laws, state laws and local laws.
Not 100%, but if it doesn't involve crossing state lines, the Federal Government doesn't get involved (at least in theory)
For instance, a few years ago the Federal government announced it was going to phase out incandescent lightbulbs because they are notoriously inefficiant when it come to energy use. A few states where those lightbulbs are made said they would continue to make them for residents of those states and as long as they didn't involve shipping across state lines, the Feds couldn't stop them.
States regulate liqour sales but in each state, counties can decide to allow liqour sales or go "dry" and each municipality in those counties can also make that choice.
Technically, the legal age to consume alcohol in the US is 18. Again, in theory a state can allow it but then the Federal government will withhold millions in Federal funding. (in any other enterprise, that's called blackmail)
Things like interstate shipping, mail, air & rail travel are all federally regulated.
We don't have federal sales tax but most states have them and then the counties and local municipalities add on to them. If a state doesn't have a state income tax, they usually have a higher sales tax
I'm guessing that neither answered you question or clarified anything.

 

Which was a problem when some states started recognizing same sex marriages and others didn't. A married same sex couple who decided to move to another state could have their marriage null and void.
This wasn't a morality thing as much as a finacial thing. Businesses in state with same sex marriage had to offer the same benefit to all spouses and that cuts into profit.
Finally, the Federal Government stepped in and said same sex marriage is the law of the land.

 

Fuck the laws!

​

 

U

 

I believe it works that they get married in their home state, and it is recognized by all other states.

 

New
*not_secure_link*www.idiotlaws.com/its-illegal-to-have-a-smelly-cock/
smelly fowl or smelly fool?

 

Alabama has no law suggesting this is illegal...

 

Concur.

The more conservative states and political representatives pitched this as a mix of a morality issue (as many view the US as a "Christian nation", first and foremost), and also as a State's Rights issue (pushing back against federal encroachment on reserved powers, real or presumed).

This resulted in a handful of states refusing to recognize same-sex marriages, then being told by the Feds "you can't do that". Which led to the Defense of Marriage Act (1996), passed by veto-proof congressional supermajorities in the House and Senate, then signed into law by Clinton. That had the well known "provision 3" that read, paraphrased, "we're legally defining marriage as between one man and one woman" law. More challenging was provision 2, which expressly allowed states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages, even if they were valid in the state where the marriage was performed. As you mentioned, that creates a whole slew of problems, be they moral, fiscal, or legislative. Really fucks up the works, in an interstate sense.

DOMA stayed in the public consciousness through GW Bush's tenure, and his administration pushed further, backing efforts for an amendment to the US Constitution that would "permanently" codify marriage as between man and wife. ("Permanently" in the sense that prohibition was also "permanent", and with an amendment process, anything could change down the road.)

The Federal Marriage Amendment never got off the ground - though not for lack of trying.

• It was introduced in the House in 2002 and never made it out of committee.
• The bill was reintroduced in the Senate in 2003, made it as far as the Committee on the Judiciary after some language changes, then didn't advance.
• A 2004 version of the amendment was submitted in the Senate, then failed cloture (the "close debate, call the question" procedure), and consideration was withdrawn.
• The same 2004 senate language was immediately resubmitted for consideration in the House, moved to a vote, and died 227 to 186 (you'd need 2/3rds or 290 votes at the time to pass).
• Skip ahead to 2005 and the same 2004-bill is reintroduced in the Senate, again, with one word changed. Cloture failed again and no formal vote on the bill was taken.
• The same bill was submitted again in the House in 2006, went to a vote, and died again, 236-187 (with 290 still the threshold).
• In 2008, a House bill was submitted proposing enactment of the FMA (which, to date, had not passed either the House or Senate). That bill went nowhere.

And there it probably would have died, and stayed dead, except the Federal Government began to take steps to fix States not honoring other States marriages.

The first of these was US v Windsor (2013), a Supreme Court case that came about because of a same-sex couple in New York. They were legally married under New York law in 2008, but one partner died in '09, and left her estate to her widow. The surviving spouse tried to claim a federal tax exemption on the estate, but was barred from doing so because of DOMA's Section 3 ("one man, one woman", at a Federal level, thus the marriage isn't valid per IRS rules, whatever New York says). The Department of Justice declined to defend DOMA in court, so a House legal advisory group stepped in to swing that particular bat. A New York Federal District Judge ruled Section 3 of DOMA was unconstitutional, and the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court weighed in and concurred, in one of those 5-4 split votes everyone loves, with the majority agreeing DOMA Section 3 violated the Fifth Amendment (specifically "No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law" - the argument was DOMA's blanket definition was effectively a due process violation of a person's liberty).

So falls Section 3.

Leading to the FMA coming back briefly, 'cause we can't just leave well enough alone:

• The Federal Marriage Amendment got reintroduced in the House in 2013 as a response to US v Windsor. Had 58 co-sponsors, but never made it out of committee.

DOMA Section 2 got wrecked by 2015's Obergefell v Hodges, another 5-4 Supreme Court ruling, but with this one squarely aimed at states having the ability to ignore marriages from other states. This was a consolidation case of six lower cases from around the country. One was a case from Michigan where two women, who couldn't marry in-state, wanted to adopt children but were denied for not being married. Ohio had two cases. The first involved two men married in Maryland, then Ohio refused to recognize it. The second was four couples trying to get listed on their children's birth certificates, but being denied because they were in same-sex relationships. Kentucky had a pair of cases - one with an out-of-state marriage not being recognized, and another where two male couples were denied marriage licenses in-state. Tennessee had a case in this mix, also dealing with recognition of out-of-state marriages.

The short version of the Supreme Court ruling is "you're fucking up per the Fourteenth Amendment", specifically Section 1, better known as the Equal Protection Clause; relevant bit;

"... nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

This reads just like the same part of the Fifth Amendment cited in US v Windsor, but the Fifth Amendment's language doesn't mention the State. States used that to argue "well hey this is the Federal rule, but States Rights, son, fuck a bunch of that" - which is partly how we got to the Fourteenth Amendment in the first place. Swinging your local legislature around to intentionally fuck with interstate ops is bad - for business, for people, and for the country.

The Supreme Court reminded us to not do that and struck down DOMA Section 2.

For the folks who are somehow still reading, you might be surprised to know that DOMA Section 1 is still on the books - but all that deals with is the "short form" name of the bill - being able to call it the Defense of Marriage Act. No other provisions survived.

But what about the Federal Marriage Amendment??, I can hear you asking with bated breath. It had one last gasp -

• The FMA was re-introduced in the House, with the same language, again, because of the expected ruling in Obergefell v Hodges pending that summer. 37 co-sponsors. Died in committee.

What comes next? Will we leave the FMA to its eternal rest? Will we invoke it every couple of years when a fresh "gay panic" rolls along? Who knows! It's sure to be a hoot either way!

And that's my weekly TED talk on the legislative process in the US.