[MortgFinsJohnQ]

So you're stating that effectively, the power to regulate marriage resides with the federal government? Thank you.

Yeah, the federal government reserves the right to revoke statehood of any states with divergent marriage regulations. This has happened no fewer than eight times in the past. Once the states correct their marriage regulations then they're re-admitted.

[Madjostok]

They have the power to regulate it in federal territories... not in states. They couldn't kick out a state that legalized polygamy. Hurr durr. So why doesn't Utah a-ok Polygamy?

[DextExexy]

So you're stating that effectively, the power to regulate marriage resides with the federal government? Thank you.

Dude, you're incredible. Am I the only one who appreciates your total detachment from reality?

[SypeKifef]

Dude, you're incredible. Am I the only one who appreciates your total detachment from reality? Question - how many US states did not originate as territories? You'll have the answer to your question.

[Kilsimpaile]

Question - how many US states did not originate as territories? You'll have the answer to your question.

At least 17. So at least 17 people appreciate your detachment from reality?

[actioliGalm]

At least 17. So at least 17 people appreciate your detachment from reality? 19. Of those that were not a part of the original 13? Just two. So really, only two states don't have this particular federal government regulation concerning them - Texas and California. That's it. Everyone else does.

[lerobudrse]

Gribbler says 17, I guess that may be true (13 + Maine, WV, Vermont, and something else?). Maryland was certainly never a territory of the federal government.

[AndyScouchek]

It's not a regulation, it's a political condition. Once a state joins the Union, it is equal to all the other states. That's been the procedure since the Enabling Act of 1802. I thought you knew at least that much about US History.

He doesn't understand how the US government works and probably never will, because he insists he knows better than the natives how their own government works.

[prkddfokic]

The 500+ lawyers in Congress can't agree the color of the ****ing sky, for the love of god.

[Wvq9InTM]

I don't trust Congress for much, but I do trust them to know basic legal facts.

Really?!

[Adimondin]

Really?!

Yes. It's kind of a crucial part of being a legislator.

[estheticianI]

You've already demonstrated that you don't understand how the US government works. I'm not sure how you intend to teach it. Do you simply read from the textbook?

[Aafimoq]

You've already demonstrated that you don't understand how the US government works. I'm not sure how you intend to teach it. Do you simply read from the textbook? Actually, I got permission to revise the curriculum my first year. We go quite a bit more in depth. I've had two students (out of 30), fail their Texas assessments, everyone else has done well. All my students this year passed.

[duncanalisstmp]

And the fact that Texas, (and California) for that matter weren't under the common law has some consequences for the legal system in both. Specifically provisions for the Catholic church. Recall that the Mexican constitution provided for government support of Catholicism, something that wasn't present in most of the United States.

Oh my God, you're worse than Oerdin. The only state with any trace of civil law left is Louisiana. Every other state is fully common law. Let me reiterate: It does not matter if a state was once a territory, or fully sovereign. Once they join the Union, all states are equal. It's only when they apply to join the Union that Congress can impose conditions on their application for statehood. Congress could deny admission to the Union because of the political beliefs of the constituency (as it often did balancing Free and Slave states prior to the Civil War), but once that state is in, it can't be ****ed with.

[tactWeiccaf]

Oh my God, you're worse than Oerdin. The only state with any trace of civil law left is Louisiana. Every other state is fully common law. Let me reiterate: It does not matter if a state was once a territory, or fully sovereign. Once they join the Union, all states are equal. It's only when they apply to join the Union that Congress can impose conditions on their application for statehood. Congress could deny admission to the Union because of the political beliefs of the constituency (as it often did balancing Free and Slave states prior to the Civil War), but once that state is in, it can't be ****ed with.

My understanding is that Louisiana basically uses a de facto common law system even if they pretend to be civil law.

[DianaDrk]

Oh my God, you're worse than Oerdin. The only state with any trace of civil law left is Louisiana. And did that happen overnight? No. They specifically changed the laws to reflect these changes over time. How they changed these laws, and when - does have bearing wrt to the English Common law. They have to explicitly say that "this jurisdiction is under English Common Law", before that can be applied. Sure, it means going back to those boring things like the Texas constitution, and what happened during reconstruction - but these things have to be looked at!

Every other state is fully common law. Let me reiterate: It does not matter if a state was once a territory, or fully sovereign. Once they join the Union, all states are equal. It's only when they apply to join the Union that Congress can impose conditions on their application for statehood. Congress could deny admission to the Union because of the political beliefs of the constituency (as it often did balancing Free and Slave states prior to the Civil War), but once that state is in, it can't be ****ed with. Ok, but the fact that certain states did not have this imposed on them through the territorial process is significant. Because it means we have to go back and check and see when this became the law and how that law became the law in the first place. This, btw, is one of the reasons they passed the law back in 1880 banning polygamy outright in the territories.

[Jackson]

Provisions specifically for the Catholic church in the Texas constitution...? Why do you think Sections 4, 5, 6, 7, 21, 26 exist?

And there we go.

Sec. 32. MARRIAGE. (a) Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman.(b) This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage. And there we go. Texas Constitution, but it wasn't there when it was first passed.

That's my point - Texas wasn't compelled to recognize laws against bigamy/polygamy, except through the application of federal laws.