@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:I appreciate the idea, but wouldn't the same be true if the man had impersonated another man? If it would, the nullification and criminal sanction would be about fraud, identity theft, or something in this vein. They wouldn't be about gay marriage.
If you're asking "would somebody be convicted of gay-marrying somebody else?" I suppose the answer would be "no." I don't think the statutes prohibiting gay marriage are criminal statutes (although they might provide sanctions for clerks who issue marriage licenses). But that doesn't mean gay marriage isn't illegal, it just means it's not a crime.
Thomas wrote:Now I'm confused. If it's necessarily the same, what criminal act in Virginia did Mr. and Mrs Loving commit when they married in Washington DC? Why didn't the federal courts just sack the state court's Loving v. Virginia decision because Virginia lacked jurisdiction over DC? Why even reach these pesky civil-rights issues?
The Lovings were convicted under
the following statute:
Quote:Leaving State to evade law. -- If any white person and colored person shall go out of this State, for the purpose of being married, and with the intention of returning, and be married out of it, and afterwards return to and reside in it, cohabiting as man and wife, they shall be punished as provided in ยง 20-59, and the marriage shall be governed by the same law as if it had been solemnized in this State. The fact of their cohabitation here as man and wife shall be evidence of their marriage.
So it was a crime in Virginia for the Lovings to live together as man and wife, even though they were married elsewhere.
Thomas wrote:I would prefer "recognize". De facto, as McTag said, gay couples in long-term relationships already live in common-law marriage. Some States recognize their relationship status by issuing marriage licenses, some don't. I think all states should. The verb "recognize" captures the essence of the issue, accurately and in plain English.
Well, most states have abolished common-law marriage, so people living together in long-term relationships aren't necessarily in a common-law marriage.
"Recognize" works when you're talking about gay marriages which are legal in one state but not in another, but I'm not so sure it's the
mot juste when you're talking about something that is illegal everywhere. For instance, suppose that all states have laws that say that no one under the age of 18 is allowed to hold public office. That wouldn't be a criminal statute, and some 17-year-old office holder wouldn't be criminally prosecuted under such a statute for masquerading as an 18-year old. Would you then say that it was time for the states to "recognize" under-age office holders? Or would it be more appropriate to say that the states should "legalize" under-age office-holding?
EDIT: I think the best word for what you want to say is "permit," as in "Virginia should permit gay couples to marry."