Bookstores Around the World (rec.arts.books) (FAQ) (IMPORTANT UPDATE)

Evelyn Leeper

unread,

Sep 25, 2009, 10:43:04 AM9/25/09

to

The bookstore lists have moved!

Due to the imminent closing of geocities, the bookstore lists have moved
to my new web page as described below. Googling for these locations may
not work for a while, since they are new.

[Individual lists are constantly being updated.]

These lists are available on the Web at:

http://danny.oz.au/books/shops/ Australia
and New Zealand
(maintained by Danny Au)

--
Evelyn C. Leeper
I don't need a friend who changes when I change and who nods
when I nod; my shadow does that much better. -Plutarch

Stratum101

unread,

Sep 25, 2009, 1:48:22 PM9/25/09

to

On Sep 25, 9:43 am, Evelyn Leeper <elee...@optonline.net> wrote:

> UShttp://www.leepers.us/evelyn/bookshops/na-sw.htm Southwestern

I'd move Texas from "southwestern" into "southern".
It is culturally Southern and only a little over
100 miles from Louisiana.

Among U.S. cities over one million, Dallas has what
must be the poorest selection of books. The Bookstop
locations that you mention around Dallas and Fort
Worth were absorbed by Barnes & Noble years ago, just
like their big downtown store in New Orleans, which
as it happened was the first of the chain I'd ever seen
in 1991 when I made a trip from California to the Florida
Keys. (Of course I knew about B&N stores in the
Northeast and their humongous store on Fifth Ave. in
Manhattan.) Although Dallas is well served by the two large
chains, namely B&N and Borders, which each has its
30,000-50,000 titles, there is only one used bookstore
of importance. That is Half Price which like Powell's
in Portland sells a combo of used and new. It is a
chain in central and western states. Its headquarters
store is in Dallas and is quite a draw. After that,
there's nothing. It could be Irkutsk. Texans
are not readers.

Lawrence Watt-Evans

unread,

Sep 25, 2009, 3:11:55 PM9/25/09

to

On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 10:48:22 -0700 (PDT), Stratum101
<j.co...@cross-comp.com> wrote:

>On Sep 25, 9:43�am, Evelyn Leeper <elee...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>> UShttp://www.leepers.us/evelyn/bookshops/na-sw.htm� � � Southwestern
>
>I'd move Texas from "southwestern" into "southern".
>It is culturally Southern and only a little over
>100 miles from Louisiana.

Not all of Texas is culturally Southern. Not all of Texas is
ANYTHING. It's an absurdly huge place, and the line between Southern
and Southwestern runs through it, not along its border.

And what's 100 miles from Louisiana? Texas adjoins Louisiana -- but
San Antonio, for example, is hundreds of miles from that border. Did
you mean Dallas?

To me, Dallas doesn't seem culturally Southern.

--
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com
I'm selling my comic collection -- see http://www.watt-evans.com/comics.html
I'm serializing a novel at http://www.watt-evans.com/realmsoflight0.html

Bill Snyder

unread,

Sep 25, 2009, 3:42:31 PM9/25/09

to

On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 15:11:55 -0400, Lawrence Watt-Evans
<l...@sff.net> wrote:

>On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 10:48:22 -0700 (PDT), Stratum101
><j.co...@cross-comp.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sep 25, 9:43 am, Evelyn Leeper <elee...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>
>>> UShttp://www.leepers.us/evelyn/bookshops/na-sw.htm Southwestern
>>
>>I'd move Texas from "southwestern" into "southern".
>>It is culturally Southern and only a little over
>>100 miles from Louisiana.
>
>Not all of Texas is culturally Southern. Not all of Texas is
>ANYTHING. It's an absurdly huge place, and the line between Southern
>and Southwestern runs through it, not along its border.
>
>And what's 100 miles from Louisiana? Texas adjoins Louisiana -- but
>San Antonio, for example, is hundreds of miles from that border. Did
>you mean Dallas?
>
>To me, Dallas doesn't seem culturally Southern.

As a long-time resident, I'd say putting "Dallas" and "culture" in
the same sentence is highly questionable, unless maybe you're
discussing microbiology.

--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]

DouhetSukd

unread,

Sep 25, 2009, 6:34:24 PM9/25/09

to

re. Vancouver, W. Canada

University Bookstore (on the University of British Columbia campus--
take bus
#10 or #4 from downtown). "Lauds itself as the West's largest
bookstore. A great selection." The renovation is finally
completed.

I can laud myself as extremely intelligent, but that does not
necessarily make it so.

Seriously, UBC bookstore has a poor selection of scifi/fantasy, about
30 linear feet worth, sparsely stocked, with mostly big big name items
- if you get lucky you might just score an Anita Blake novel. That
was about 2 yrs ago and there were no renos underway at the time. I
don't recall the rest of the (non-college) book selection overwhelming
me either. IIRC there seemed to be a lot of knick knacks and
university collectibles rather than books.

Dave Hansen

unread,

Sep 25, 2009, 6:41:16 PM9/25/09

to

On Sep 25, 2:11 pm, Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net> wrote:
[...]

> Not all of Texas is culturally Southern. Not all of Texas is
> ANYTHING. It's an absurdly huge place, and the line between Southern
> and Southwestern runs through it, not along its border.

Hell, it's a whole 'nother country.

-=Dave

(It's a bumper sticker, or at least it was last time I visited)

Stratum101

unread,

Sep 26, 2009, 5:04:03 AM9/26/09

to

On Sep 25, 12:48 pm, Stratum101 <j.coll...@cross-comp.com> wrote:
> On Sep 25, 9:43 am, Evelyn Leeper <elee...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> > UShttp://www.leepers.us/evelyn/bookshops/na-sw.htm Southwestern
>
> I'd move Texas from "southwestern" into "southern".
> It is culturally Southern and only a little over
> 100 miles from Louisiana.

An interesting sentence. I was actually referring to
Dallas, a city positioned a little over 100 miles
from the Texas - Louisiana border.

(A check with the Google map shows
165 miles road distance from downtown Dallas to
the Louisiana state line. Okay. "A little
over 150 miles from Louisiana...")

The follow-on discussion about whether Texas
is Southern is just silly. All of it is,
even border towns like Brownsville and El Paso.
Most of Texas's population live in the eastern third
of the state on the western edge of the
Deep South. The cultural capital of that
Texas is Dallas. Or maybe it is
Waxahachie. They're neighboring
county seats.

There is something of a cultural divide in
the state. South Texas, beginning south
of Austin and centered on San Antonio,
is more Latino and politically bluer than
North Texas. One could stretch
"Latino Texas" clear out to El Paso.

The big ethnic divide in Texas the
Southern state is between white and
black. The ethnic divide in South
Texas is between Anglo and Latino.
But everywhere in Texas, the Anglos have
the same plumb-dumb Texas drawl
that accompanies wide-eyed amazement at
questions that are totally irrelevant to life like,
"Do you know where there's a half-decent
bookstore around here?"

foad

unread,

Sep 26, 2009, 8:12:11 AM9/26/09

to

"DouhetSukd" <douhe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:01cb199a-58c0-4925...@s6g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...

> I can laud myself as extremely intelligent, but that does not
> necessarily make it so.

No, it certainly doesn't.

Butch Malahide

unread,

Sep 27, 2009, 12:10:55 AM9/27/09

to

On Sep 25, 5:34 pm, DouhetSukd <douhets...@gmail.com> wrote:
> re. Vancouver, W. Canada
>
> University Bookstore (on the University of British Columbia campus--
> take bus
> #10 or #4 from downtown). "Lauds itself as the West's largest
> bookstore. A great selection." The renovation is finally
> completed.
>
> I can laud myself as extremely intelligent, but that does not
> necessarily make it so.
>

> Seriously, UBC bookstore has a poor selection of scifi/fantasy [snip]

Well, of course. If it's like most college bookstores, the only used
books it carries are textbooks for classes. Obviously the wrong place
to look for science fiction and fantasy; for that you want a used book
store.

Butch Malahide

unread,

Sep 27, 2009, 1:26:07 AM9/27/09

to

On Sep 25, 12:48 pm, Stratum101 <j.coll...@cross-comp.com> wrote:

> [. . .]

> Although Dallas is well served by the two large
> chains, namely B&N and Borders, which each has its
> 30,000-50,000 titles, there is only one used bookstore
> of importance. That is Half Price which like Powell's
> in Portland sells a combo of used and new. It is a
> chain in central and western states. Its headquarters
> store is in Dallas and is quite a draw.

How is it such a draw, if Texans are non-readers? Does it have a
really big section of CDs and DVDs?

> After that, there's nothing. It could be Irkutsk.

Are you talking about Irkutsk, Siberia, or is there an Irkutsk in
Texas? If you are saying that the city of Irkutsk, in Siberia, has a
shortage of bookshops, is even a byword for booklessness, that is news
to me, and rather surprising. Are you from Irkutsk?

> Texans are not readers.

Non sequitur. They are mostly connected to the internet, so their
ability to shop for new and used books is not limited by the number of
bookshops.

Stratum101

unread,

Sep 27, 2009, 2:51:33 AM9/27/09

to

On Sep 27, 12:26 am, Butch Malahide <fred.gal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 25, 12:48 pm, Stratum101 <j.coll...@cross-comp.com> wrote:
>
> > [. . .]
> > Although Dallas is well served by the two large
> > chains, namely B&N and Borders, which each has its
> > 30,000-50,000 titles, there is only one used bookstore
> > of importance. That is Half Price which like Powell's
> > in Portland sells a combo of used and new. It is a
> > chain in central and western states. Its headquarters
> > store is in Dallas and is quite a draw.
>
> How is it such a draw, if Texans are non-readers? >

Because it is the only significant used bookstore
in a large city, idiot. The minority of the population
who do browse in bookstores all show up at the
same place, which in the case of Dallas
is *one* place.

Stratum101

unread,

Sep 27, 2009, 2:57:31 AM9/27/09

to

For other literalist idiots who don't understand
the context of Irkutsk, make this last sentence
"...show up at the same places, which
in the case of Dallas is only one place".

Stratum101

unread,

Sep 27, 2009, 5:23:54 AM9/27/09

to

High standard of living, low level of introspection among
natives is how I would characterize Dallas. I'm from
San Francisco, and am spending a year or so in Dallas.
I lived here 40 years ago for a couple of years. One trades
high priced real estate there for abysmal weather here.
Dallas has almost no graffiti in comparison with cities
on both coasts. People are politer here. But in San
Francisco, as an example of what I consider cultural
cluelessness in Dallas, light skinned young people
don't cover themselves with tattoos, nor are there
many tanning salons.

Interestingly, the coffee house culture exists
in Dallas, especially North Dallas, where
more of the city's population live. Every
corner has its Starbucks. But again,
Dallas, a city of chain businesses,
lacks independent coffee houses which
abound in West Coast cities. Your
Dallas Starbucks is a place for
closing deals.

San Francisco is blessed with books. There is
about one used bookstore for every business
district and many independents operate
alongside B&N and Borders which each
has only a few stores in the City.
There's even a decent Half Price
Books over in Berkeley although that
chain has consolidated three stores in
the Bay Area into one. I don't think
it has any stores in the Southland,
that is, down around L.A.

Rambling discussion...

Is Texas a good place to live?
Well, in a free society, you can
thrive anywhere. Dallas is far
more integrated among blacks and
whites. But black people, comprising
maybe 35% of the local population
are the only significant minority.
No ethnic group has a majority
in large California cities. Maybe
40% of the Bay Area population
is Asian with Chinese and
Indians as the largest sub-groups.
The most common surname
in the San Francisco phone
book is Lee (or was said to be
years ago when Art Hoppe was
alive.) I would guess that over
half of Sunnyvale's population
is Indian. (Sunnyvale is the
second largest city in Santa
Clara County which includes
Silicon Valley.) Black people in
the Bay Area and in California
in general clearly have second-rate
status. And down in Los Angeles,
just eavesdrop any conversation
among the boys in blue on break
(at a Winchell's, say) if you want
to hear statements that wouldn't
be tolerated in present-day
Big D.

foad

unread,

Sep 27, 2009, 9:10:31 AM9/27/09

to

"Stratum101" <j.co...@cross-comp.com> wrote in message
news:cc0b0dd9-6b69-4718...@d4g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...

Is Texas a good place to live?
Well, in a free society, you can
thrive anywhere. Dallas is far
more integrated among blacks and
whites. But black people, comprising
maybe 35% of the local population
are the only significant minority.

======

There are no hispanics in Dallas? That seems odd. Or do you lump all the
coloreds together for demographic purposes. Let's go to the video tape

Dallas, Texas

White 50.8%
Hispanic / Latino 35.6%
Black 25.9%

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/48/4819000.html

So to recap: you're very observant and nearly everything you say is as if
Moses brought it down the mountain personally.

Stratum101

unread,

Sep 27, 2009, 10:10:09 AM9/27/09

to

On Sep 27, 8:10 am, "foad" <kf...@eriouvsdk.org> wrote:
> "Stratum101" <j.coll...@cross-comp.com> wrote in message

That's an interesting stat, and is repeated in the
Wikipedia entry "Demographics of Dallas".

I am surprised that Latinos outnumber blacks. That blacks
are half the white population does seem about what
I see. I being from California where Latinos are the largest
minority would notice. (Converseley, when I was at the
U. of Texas in the 1960s, I thought San Antonio, 75 miles
away from Austin, looked just like a mini-Los Angeles.)

I do not know where Dallas Latinos are hiding and
I don't think they've assimilated. I did note that
part of Walnut Hill where I lived at the end of the
1960s now looks predominantly Latino in the
vicinity of Webb Chapel at Northwest
Highway, but that's only a small part of
North Dallas.

Anyway, I welcome some yummy food
(and non-chain places!) being added to the
local cuisine by Latinos' inclusion. I look
for places with "Baja" in their name which
implies northwest Mexican cuisine, the
kind which is everywhere in Los Angeles.

The L.A. style quesadilla is one of the
basic food groups, and helps to prevent
under-employment among cardiologists
and oncologists. Your native Dallas
quesadilla is a pitiful imitation fit only
for Weight Watchers.

DouhetSukd

unread,

Sep 28, 2009, 2:46:43 AM9/28/09

to

Beg to differ. I would have gotten better grades in my EE courses had
my college bookstore had a more modest SF selection at the time.

Dorothy J Heydt

unread,

Sep 28, 2009, 2:56:29 AM9/28/09

to

In article <b763cc9c-9be7-47ba...@g1g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,

Long, long ago, in the morning of the world when there was
less noise and more green, I took a summer course at
Stanford, which got me access to the library stacks. They had
a complete run of F&SF (up to that time, which was about 1960).
I had *such* a lovely time. I even got some coursework done
too, 'cause they also had the complete works of Federico
Garcia Lorca.

--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at hotmail dot com
Should you wish to email me, you'd better use the hotmail edress.
Kithrup is getting too damn much spam, even with the sysop's filters.

Stanley Moore

unread,

Sep 28, 2009, 10:22:26 AM9/28/09

to

"Lawrence Watt-Evans" <l...@sff.net> wrote in message
news:2a5qb5p9m9orjodmi...@news.eternal-september.org...

> On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 10:48:22 -0700 (PDT), Stratum101
> <j.co...@cross-comp.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sep 25, 9:43 am, Evelyn Leeper <elee...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>
>>> UShttp://www.leepers.us/evelyn/bookshops/na-sw.htm Southwestern
>>
>>I'd move Texas from "southwestern" into "southern".
>>It is culturally Southern and only a little over
>>100 miles from Louisiana.
>
> Not all of Texas is culturally Southern. Not all of Texas is
> ANYTHING. It's an absurdly huge place, and the line between Southern
> and Southwestern runs through it, not along its border.
>
> And what's 100 miles from Louisiana? Texas adjoins Louisiana -- but
> San Antonio, for example, is hundreds of miles from that border. Did
> you mean Dallas?
>
> To me, Dallas doesn't seem culturally Southern.
>

I agree that Dallas is culturally "Texan" <G> not Southern. We are big and
diverse. Take care
--
Stanley L. Moore
"The belief in a supernatural
source of evil is not necessary;
men alone are quite capable
of every wickedness."
Joseph Conrad

Stanley Moore

unread,

Sep 28, 2009, 10:20:50 AM9/28/09

to

"Stratum101" <j.co...@cross-comp.com> wrote in message

news:e68dc9ef-becb-4bf2...@l35g2000vba.googlegroups.com...

On Sep 25, 9:43 am, Evelyn Leeper <elee...@optonline.net> wrote:

> UShttp://www.leepers.us/evelyn/bookshops/na-sw.htm Southwestern

I'd move Texas from "southwestern" into "southern".
It is culturally Southern and only a little over
100 miles from Louisiana.

***********************************************
Actually it is 0 miles from Louisiana as Texas borders that state <G>. Texas
is a big state and is culturally diverse. I agree that Houston area is
Southern in orientation but Laredo and the western parts are Western while
Lubbock and the panhandle are more Midwestern and Brownsville near the
Mexican border is different yet. Take care

Stratum101

unread,

Sep 28, 2009, 11:59:50 AM9/28/09

to

On Sep 28, 9:22 am, "Stanley Moore" <smoor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> "Lawrence Watt-Evans" <l...@sff.net> wrote in message
>
> news:2a5qb5p9m9orjodmi...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 10:48:22 -0700 (PDT), Stratum101
> > <j.coll...@cross-comp.com> wrote:
>
> >>On Sep 25, 9:43 am, Evelyn Leeper <elee...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> >>> UShttp://www.leepers.us/evelyn/bookshops/na-sw.htmSouthwestern
>
> >>I'd move Texas from "southwestern" into "southern".
> >>It is culturally Southern and only a little over
> >>100 miles from Louisiana.
>
> > Not all of Texas is culturally Southern. Not all of Texas is
> > ANYTHING. It's an absurdly huge place, and the line between Southern
> > and Southwestern runs through it, not along its border.
>
> > And what's 100 miles from Louisiana? Texas adjoins Louisiana -- but
> > San Antonio, for example, is hundreds of miles from that border. Did
> > you mean Dallas?
>
> > To me, Dallas doesn't seem culturally Southern.
>
> I agree that Dallas is culturally "Texan" <G> not Southern. We are big and
> diverse. Take care

This is the sort of silly boosterism that one commonly hears
around Dallas and Fort Worth, that is, that they're "Western".
In fact, the owner of one of the used bookstores in the
big ol' Metroplex, a place in Handley over on the east
side of Fort Worth, informed me that *California*
isn't really the West. Texuss iz, y'all.

I don't know how to argue with such unvarnished
ignorance. I will say as a guy who has read
just about all of Wallace Stegner and who has
spent most of his life in the Far West that
*we* know where the place is even if Texans
are geographically naive.

If you're in Dallas, pard, you're down in
the South.

Stratum101

unread,

Sep 28, 2009, 1:00:03 PM9/28/09

to

On Sep 28, 9:20 am, "Stanley Moore" <smoor...@comcast.net> wrote:

> Actually it is 0 miles from Louisiana as Texas borders that state <G>. Texas
> is a big state and is culturally diverse. I agree that Houston area is
> Southern in orientation but Laredo and the western parts are Western while
> Lubbock and the panhandle are more Midwestern and Brownsville near the
> Mexican border is different yet.

Yes, and I understand your desire to keep Dallas out of
the South, but even I can see the place has changed from
the redneck, Jim Crow town where I lived in the
late 1960s.

Stanley Moore

unread,

Sep 28, 2009, 1:19:31 PM9/28/09

to

"Stratum101" <j.co...@cross-comp.com> wrote in message

news:cbf2cc29-3a06-42d7...@l31g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...

*******************************************
I am in Houston which I agree is "South" and Texas was part of the
Confederacy so by definition is South. Dallas on the other hand thinks it is
western but it lies to the east of the real West. In reality the next city
to the west of Dallas is Fort Worth which is the site of a army fort founded
in 1849, one of a series to mark the western frontier. Fort Worth (where I
was born) sometimes styles itself "Where the West Begins". So Dallas
shouldn't call itself :western". Take care

Stratum101

unread,

Sep 28, 2009, 6:09:24 PM9/28/09

to

On Sep 28, 12:19 pm, "Stanley Moore" <smoor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> "Stratum101" <j.coll...@cross-comp.com> wrote in message

Fort Worth is "Where the West begins" because the
drunkard Sam Houston decreed that Commanches or
some tribe he didn't like were to stay west
of a line that began at Fort Worth. He could've
said they were to stay north of Waco which
would put Fort Worth 90 miles into Yankee
territory.

Texans who think they're in the West might
be shocked to learn that in California
the phrase "back east" often refers
to Texas.

Way back east. Dallas is nearly
2000 miles from San Francisco.

Stanley Moore

unread,

Sep 28, 2009, 6:22:21 PM9/28/09

to

"Stratum101" <j.co...@cross-comp.com> wrote in message

news:97a9d992-af5f-4461...@g31g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...

********************************************************

At its widest Texas is some 900 miles across. There is a verse that
describes travelling the state:
"The sun is riz, the sun is set,
But we is in Texas yet."

By the way you shouldn't diss Sam Houston the great Texas hero. True he
might have had "issues" and was fond of a dram now and then. You must
remember that water purification was a bit dicey then and whiskey was a good
cure for stomach illnesses. Remember General Worth for whom Fort Worth was
named died of cholera.

J

unread,

Sep 28, 2009, 7:35:54 PM9/28/09

to

Talk about "thread drift"...

Stratum101

unread,

Sep 28, 2009, 7:53:06 PM9/28/09

to

On Sep 28, 5:22 pm, "Stanley Moore" <smoor...@comcast.net> wrote:

> By the way you shouldn't diss Sam Houston the great Texas hero.

Yeah, yeah. He was such a tubular sandwich.

Joan in GB-W

unread,

Sep 28, 2009, 11:51:58 PM9/28/09

to

"J" <jme...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:b39af7f1-79f0-4d1b...@v36g2000yqv.googlegroups.com...

> Talk about "thread drift"...

Yep. RAM is famous for thread drift.

Joan

Walter Bushell

unread,

Sep 29, 2009, 7:35:06 AM9/29/09

to

In article <AeCdndEMadweb13X...@giganews.com>,
"Stanley Moore" <smoo...@comcast.net> wrote:

> I am in Houston which I agree is "South" and Texas was part of the
> Confederacy so by definition is South. Dallas on the other hand thinks it is
> western but it lies to the east of the real West. In reality the next city
> to the west of Dallas is Fort Worth which is the site of a army fort founded
> in 1849, one of a series to mark the western frontier. Fort Worth (where I
> was born) sometimes styles itself "Where the West Begins". So Dallas
> shouldn't call itself :western". Take care

Do the eastern and western sections of Fort Worth dispute at which
north--south street the border to the West lies?

--
A computer without Microsoft is like a chocolate cake without mustard.

Evelyn Leeper

unread,

Sep 29, 2009, 10:55:00 PM9/29/09

to

J wrote:
> Talk about "thread drift"...

Which also means I have to read all this stuff in case someone actually
has a useful update....

--
Evelyn C. Leeper
I don't need a friend who changes when I change and who nods
when I nod; my shadow does that much better. -Plutarch

Stratum101

unread,

Sep 30, 2009, 1:41:55 PM9/30/09

to

On Sep 29, 9:55 pm, Evelyn Leeper <elee...@optonline.net> wrote:
> J wrote:
> > Talk about "thread drift"...
>
> Which also means I have to read all this stuff in case someone actually
> has a useful update....

Much of your Dallas / Ft Worth stuff is out of date, e.g.,
references to a bookstore called Bookstop, which
was the original name of some B&N stores
years ago. Dallas is also not well served by used
bookstores a theme which I have already harped on
enough.

Nevertheless, in order to help you, I will check each
entry in your list for stores in Dallas confirming
either by telephone or by personal visit, and
report back here within one week. Promise!

Richard D. Latham

unread,

Sep 30, 2009, 5:37:29 PM9/30/09

to

Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> writes:

Good question.

The Stockyards are on the east side of Main Street, and most of the
(remaining) bars are on the west side.

I say "Main Street" is the dividing line. :-)

Hey, maps.google.com agress with me ... All the east-west streets
change names when they cross Main :-)

--
#include <disclaimer.std> /* I don't speak for IBM ... */
/* Heck, I don't even speak for myself */
/* Don't believe me ? Ask my wife :-) */
Richard D. Latham lat...@us.ibm.com

J

unread,

Sep 30, 2009, 9:15:24 PM9/30/09

to

On Sep 29, 10:55�pm, Evelyn Leeper <elee...@optonline.net> wrote:
> J wrote:
> > Talk about "thread drift"...
>
> Which also means I have to read all this stuff in case someone actually
> has a useful update....
>
> --
> Evelyn C. Leeper

I'm going to Seattle next week. If I have any useful corrections, I
will send them to you privately, as I have done in the past.

Thanks again for your hard work in producing these lists, even if they
*are* out of date almost before the cyber-ink is dry...

Dave Garrett

unread,

Oct 1, 2009, 4:33:56 PM10/1/09

to

In article <AeCdndEMadweb13X...@giganews.com>, smoore20
@comcast.net says...

> I am in Houston which I agree is "South" and Texas was part of the
> Confederacy so by definition is South. Dallas on the other hand thinks it is
> western but it lies to the east of the real West. In reality the next city
> to the west of Dallas is Fort Worth which is the site of a army fort founded
> in 1849, one of a series to mark the western frontier. Fort Worth (where I
> was born) sometimes styles itself "Where the West Begins". So Dallas
> shouldn't call itself :western". Take care

All native Houstonians know that Dallas is in fact a wretched hive of
scum and villainy located so far to the north that it may very well be
populated almost exclusively by Yankees.

;-)

Dave

Bill Snyder

unread,

Oct 1, 2009, 5:30:39 PM10/1/09

to

Oh, not necessarily wretched, by any means. Some of us fairly
revel in the scum and villainy.

--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]

mikea

unread,

Oct 1, 2009, 8:05:17 PM10/1/09

to

We know they're wretched, whether or not they are willing to admit it.

--
Mike Andrews, W5EGO
mi...@mikea.ath.cx
Tired old sysadmin

Walter Bushell

unread,

Oct 1, 2009, 9:52:56 PM10/1/09

to

In article <4oqk5d...@us.ibm.com>,

lat...@us.ibm.com (Richard D. Latham) wrote:

> Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> writes:
>
> > In article <AeCdndEMadweb13X...@giganews.com>,
> > "Stanley Moore" <smoo...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> >> I am in Houston which I agree is "South" and Texas was part of the
> >> Confederacy so by definition is South. Dallas on the other hand thinks it
> >> is
> >> western but it lies to the east of the real West. In reality the next city
> >> to the west of Dallas is Fort Worth which is the site of a army fort
> >> founded
> >> in 1849, one of a series to mark the western frontier. Fort Worth (where I
> >> was born) sometimes styles itself "Where the West Begins". So Dallas
> >> shouldn't call itself :western". Take care
> >
> > Do the eastern and western sections of Fort Worth dispute at which
> > north--south street the border to the West lies?
> >
>
> Good question.
>
> The Stockyards are on the east side of Main Street, and most of the
> (remaining) bars are on the west side.
>
> I say "Main Street" is the dividing line. :-)
>
> Hey, maps.google.com agress with me ... All the east-west streets
> change names when they cross Main :-)

LOL!

Stanley Moore

unread,

Oct 2, 2009, 10:19:16 AM10/2/09

to

"Dave Garrett" <da...@compassnet.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.252ece297...@208.90.168.18...

Perfect description of the attitude of us Houstonians. Our cosmopolitan city
is far and away better than the denizens of Dallas ever dare to hope for.

Mark Zenier

unread,

Oct 1, 2009, 1:54:31 PM10/1/09

to

In article <f56cd10e-4517-45f4...@d21g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>,

Minor Seattle update.

Gemini Book Exchange is long gone.

Flora and Fauna are not in the recent phone book; ;=(

Archie McPhee ran afoul of the real estate monster in Ballard
and moved back to Wallingford (about 6 blocks up Stone Way from
their previous previous location).

Pegasus and Leisure were still there on Tuesday. ;-) (West Seattle)
Page 2 in Burien, as of a month or so ago.

Worth adding is Abraxus Books, 5711 24th Ave NW, in Ballard. They built
a new branch library in Ballard (along with about a dozen others on a
big bond issue) and the 1970's vintage not so old library is now a used
book store. Average for Science Fiction, but the Philosophy section
is impressive.

There's at least one more used bookstore in Ballard, too,
(Epilogue Books?) that I've not been to yet.

Mark Zenier mze...@eskimo.com
Googleproofaddress(account:mzenier provider:eskimo domain:com)

Stephen Graham

unread,

Oct 2, 2009, 12:58:07 PM10/2/09

to

Mark Zenier wrote:

> Worth adding is Abraxus Books, 5711 24th Ave NW, in Ballard. They built
> a new branch library in Ballard (along with about a dozen others on a
> big bond issue) and the 1970's vintage not so old library is now a used
> book store. Average for Science Fiction, but the Philosophy section
> is impressive.

That's out-of-date. Abraxus moved to Lower Queen Anne about a month ago.
524 1st Avenue.

> There's at least one more used bookstore in Ballard, too,
> (Epilogue Books?) that I've not been to yet.

2001 NW Market St. I haven't been in it recently but my roommate thinks
it's reasonably good.

Cornholio

unread,

Oct 4, 2009, 8:37:45 AM10/4/09

to

"Bill Snyder" <bsn...@airmail.net> wrote in message
news:r67qb596eihai6trg...@4ax.com...

> On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 15:11:55 -0400, Lawrence Watt-Evans
> <l...@sff.net> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 10:48:22 -0700 (PDT), Stratum101
>><j.co...@cross-comp.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sep 25, 9:43 am, Evelyn Leeper <elee...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> UShttp://www.leepers.us/evelyn/bookshops/na-sw.htm Southwestern
>>>
>>>I'd move Texas from "southwestern" into "southern".
>>>It is culturally Southern and only a little over
>>>100 miles from Louisiana.
>>
>>Not all of Texas is culturally Southern. Not all of Texas is
>>ANYTHING. It's an absurdly huge place, and the line between Southern
>>and Southwestern runs through it, not along its border.
>>
>>And what's 100 miles from Louisiana? Texas adjoins Louisiana -- but
>>San Antonio, for example, is hundreds of miles from that border. Did
>>you mean Dallas?
>>
>>To me, Dallas doesn't seem culturally Southern.
>

> As a long-time resident, I'd say putting "Dallas" and "culture" in
> the same sentence is highly questionable, unless maybe you're
> discussing microbiology.

Texas has the highest per capita amount of assholes of any state in the nation,
nearing 100%.
I grow weary of blowhard Texans and their braggadocio.
The state is overrun by spics and drug dealers.
The USA would have been better off if Texas had lost the war with Mexico!

Howard Brazee

unread,

Oct 4, 2009, 11:24:41 AM10/4/09

to

On Sun, 4 Oct 2009 08:37:45 -0400, "Cornholio"
<Corn...@tp4.mybunghole> wrote:

>Texas has the highest per capita amount of assholes of any state in the nation,
>nearing 100%.
>I grow weary of blowhard Texans and their braggadocio.
>The state is overrun by spics and drug dealers.
>The USA would have been better off if Texas had lost the war with Mexico!

I wonder how that would have changed the economies of both the U.S.
and of Mexico. What would North America be like today.

_A Specter is Haunting Texas_ seemed to be about Lyndon Johnson's
Texas when I read it when it came out.

--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."

- James Madison

Stanley Moore

unread,

Oct 4, 2009, 3:09:48 PM10/4/09

to

"Cornholio" <Corn...@tp4.mybunghole> wrote in message
news:haa4tt$lbn$1...@news.eternal-september.org...

Now that was a truly hateful screed <G>. Texas is like nowhere else. Yes, it
has problems; what place doesn't? Yes, there are a few blowhards; where can
you not find them? Sure there are some drug dealers as well as very nice
hardworking Hispanic families. But all in all there is nowhere I'd rather
live. You have immense diversity of landscape, cultural orientation, and
Texas is well renowned for its friendly people. Take care

Louann Miller

unread,

Oct 4, 2009, 4:25:00 PM10/4/09

to

"Stanley Moore" <smoo...@comcast.net> wrote in
news:14CdnQ69c4jAaVXX...@giganews.com:

> Now that was a truly hateful screed <G>.

He doesn't want reasoned discourse, he wants a flame war. Don't give him
either, it's not worth the time.

Stratum101

unread,

Oct 4, 2009, 7:15:12 PM10/4/09

to

On Oct 4, 2:09 pm, "Stanley Moore" <smoor...@comcast.net> wrote:

> Texas is like nowhere else.

Sort of like North Korea and Patagonia, except the
weather in Texas isn't as good.

Patok

unread,

Oct 4, 2009, 8:39:43 PM10/4/09

to

Stanley Moore wrote:
>
> Texas is like nowhere else.

Every place is like nowhere else, depending on how closely you
look. Conversely, every place is like everywhere else, when you look at
it from a sufficient distance. :)

> But all in all there is nowhere I'd rather
> live. You have immense diversity of landscape, cultural orientation, and
> Texas is well renowned for its friendly people.

That's fine and dandy, but how do you cope with the weather? IMHO,
that's its biggest problem, not the people.

--
You'd be crazy to e-mail me with the crazy. But leave the div alone.

Evelyn Leeper

unread,

Oct 4, 2009, 10:26:48 PM10/4/09

to

Patok wrote:
> Stanley Moore wrote:
>>
>> Texas is like nowhere else.
>
> Every place is like nowhere else, depending on how closely you look.
> Conversely, every place is like everywhere else, when you look at it
> from a sufficient distance. :)
>
>
>> But all in all there is nowhere I'd rather live. You have immense
>> diversity of landscape, cultural orientation, and Texas is well
>> renowned for its friendly people.
>
> That's fine and dandy, but how do you cope with the weather? IMHO,
> that's its biggest problem, not the people.
>

You go into an air-conditioned bookstore, of course.

Oh, I'm sorry, I actually drifted back to the topic. :-)

--
Evelyn C. Leeper

Francis A. Miniter

unread,

Oct 4, 2009, 10:35:17 PM10/4/09

to

Patok wrote:
> Stanley Moore wrote:
>>
>> Texas is like nowhere else.
>
> Every place is like nowhere else, depending on how closely you look.
> Conversely, every place is like everywhere else, when you look at it
> from a sufficient distance. :)
>
>
>> But all in all there is nowhere I'd rather live. You have immense
>> diversity of landscape, cultural orientation, and Texas is well
>> renowned for its friendly people.
>
> That's fine and dandy, but how do you cope with the weather? IMHO,
> that's its biggest problem, not the people.
>

Yes. I would come out of my hotel in Houston in the morning
and the force of the heat and humidity immediately fashioned
on my brain an image of the doorman picking up a hot, wet
blanket and slamming it into my face while saying, "Good
morning, sir."

--
Francis A. Miniter

Oscuramente
libros, laminas, llaves
siguen mi suerte.

Jorge Luis Borges, La Cifra Haiku, 6

David DeLaney

unread,

Oct 4, 2009, 8:30:57 PM10/4/09

to

Patok <crazy.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Stanley Moore wrote:
>> Texas is like nowhere else.
>
> Every place is like nowhere else, depending on how closely you
>look. Conversely, every place is like everywhere else, when you look at
>it from a sufficient distance. :)

And if you look at the metric instead of the places, you get Nourse's
_The Universe Between_...

Dave "manifold interests" DeLaney
--
\/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.

Miles Bader

unread,

Oct 5, 2009, 6:20:39 AM10/5/09

to

Patok <crazy.d...@gmail.com> writes:
> That's fine and dandy, but how do you cope with the weather? IMHO,
> that's its biggest problem, not the people.

When I chided a friend who (at the time) lived in Texas about driving
everywhere, his reply was that in Texas it simply wasn't possible to
survive without air-conditioning for more than about 30 seconds
(enough to dash from car to building).

What on earth they did they do before the advent of aircon...?

-Miles

--
Arrest, v. Formally to detain one accused of unusualness.

J

unread,

Oct 5, 2009, 5:42:24 PM10/5/09

to

On Oct 4, 10:26�pm, Evelyn Leeper <elee...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> You go into an air-conditioned bookstore, of course.
>
> Oh, I'm sorry, I actually drifted back to the topic. :-)

ROFLMAO! Thanks for that!

Stanley Moore

unread,

Oct 6, 2009, 2:25:33 PM10/6/09

to

"Patok" <crazy.d...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:habf73$o6h$1...@news.eternal-september.org...

> Stanley Moore wrote:
>>
>> Texas is like nowhere else.
>
> Every place is like nowhere else, depending on how closely you look.
> Conversely, every place is like everywhere else, when you look at it from
> a sufficient distance. :)
>
>
>> But all in all there is nowhere I'd rather live. You have immense
>> diversity of landscape, cultural orientation, and Texas is well renowned
>> for its friendly people.
>
> That's fine and dandy, but how do you cope with the weather? IMHO,
> that's its biggest problem, not the people.
>

That's why air conditioning was invented. <G> You get used to it being hot
which only lasts five or six months here in Houston. The winters in Houston
are cool with rare frosts. Once or twice a year you can typically get a low
of 26-28� which lasts for 4 or 5 hours in the night and warms up to 60 or 65
by 10am. The rest of the day will be clear and cool with maybe a light
freeze the next night followed by 75 degrees the next day. Plaeny of
tropical plants easily survive such short frosts. The key is duration not
how cold it gets. There is a big difference between below 32� that lasts for
weeks and a cold snap that lasts 6 hours.

As for heat you can get used to anything and Houston is fairly close to the
Gulf of Mexico which keeps it from getting as hot as further inland. The
only really bad weather is hurricanes which are few and far between. A year
ago we had Ike which was terrible but nothing this year. Take care

William December Starr

unread,

Oct 7, 2009, 11:01:12 AM10/7/09

to

In article <haa4tt$lbn$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
"Cornholio" <Corn...@tp4.mybunghole> said:

> I grow weary of blowhard Texans and their braggadocio.
> The state is overrun by spics and drug dealers.

Go away. Go far away.

-- wds

William December Starr

unread,

Oct 7, 2009, 11:03:21 AM10/7/09

to

In article <r67qb596eihai6trg...@4ax.com>,
Bill Snyder <bsn...@airmail.net> said:

> As a long-time resident, I'd say putting "Dallas" and "culture"
> in the same sentence is highly questionable, unless maybe you're
> discussing microbiology.

"Whenever I hear the word 'Dallas,' I reach for my revolver."

-- wds

mikea

unread,

Oct 7, 2009, 11:09:24 AM10/7/09

to

I lived in Texas for 15 years. The one thing that amazed me about
Texas was that it was large enough to hold all those Texan egoes.

--
My current building was designed, for the architecture school, by the
outgoing head of said school. It was a supreme act of vengeance. The
building barely has a room with a right-angle in it, and most of the walls
are curved. You want furniture that fits? HAHAHA -- Dave, in the Monastery

William December Starr

unread,

Oct 7, 2009, 11:18:36 AM10/7/09

to

In article <14CdnQ69c4jAaVXX...@giganews.com>,
"Stanley Moore" <smoo...@comcast.net> said:

> Now that was a truly hateful screed <G>. Texas is like nowhere
> else. Yes, it has problems; what place doesn't? Yes, there are a
> few blowhards; where can you not find them? Sure there are some
> drug dealers as well as very nice hardworking Hispanic
> families. But all in all there is nowhere I'd rather live. You
> have immense diversity of landscape, cultural orientation, and
> Texas is well renowned for its friendly people. Take care

I noticed this a few days ago...

<http://tinyurl.com/yboo6jb>
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/02/texas-judge-rules-gay-mar_n_307532.html>

Texas Judge Rules Gay-Marriage Ban Violates U.S. Constitution
MATT CURRY | 10/ 1/09 11:43 PM | AP

DALLAS -- A Texas judge cleared the way for two Dallas men to
get a divorce, ruling Thursday that Texas' ban on same-sex
marriage violates the constitutional guarantee to equal
protection under the law.

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott said he'd appeal the ruling,
which he labeled an attempt to strike down the ban approved by
voters in 2005.

"The laws and constitution of the State of Texas define
marriage as an institution involving one man and one woman,"
Abbott said in a written statement. "Today's ruling purports to
strike down that constitutional definition - despite the fact
that it was recently adopted by 75 percent of Texas voters."

[ remainder of article deleted ]

...which gives the impression that Texas is blessed with an Attorney
General who believes that a 75% plebiscite by state voters suffices
to override the United States Constitution.

(Oh, and I see that judges are elected there too -- a malfunction
that's hardly unique to Texas, of course -- and this particular
Dallas County judge, a Democrat, is up for reelection in 2010.
I predict a sedate, civilized campaign.)

-- wds

Stanley Moore

unread,

Oct 8, 2009, 12:13:56 PM10/8/09

to

"William December Starr" <wds...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:haibgc$hpj$1...@panix3.panix.com...

It is not entierly clear that Texas's (and many other state) constitutionals
bans on gay marriage do violate the US Constitution. On the amendment in
question I voted against as I would like to get married but I expect it will
be a good long while until I can here in Texas. Take care

Francis A. Miniter

unread,

Oct 13, 2009, 4:09:01 PM10/13/09

to

Hi Stanley,

The states where courts have overturned the laws restricting
marriage to heterosexual couples have done so on the basis
of the state constitutional protections - which usually
mirror the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment of
the U.S. Constitution. One or more may have also invoked
that clause, but what made the cases unappealable to the
U.S. Supreme Court is that they were decided under the state
constitutions.

What the Texas Attorney General seems confused about is the
difference between (a) a court decision allowing same sex
marriages in Texas and (b) the obligation under Section 1 of
Article IV of the U.S. Constitution to give "full faith and
credit . . . to the public acts, records, and judicial
proceedings of every other state." The Texas judge had to
recognize that this couple was married under the laws of
another jurisdiction. Given that, and since they were
domiciled in Texas, he would then have had to apply the law
of the other jurisdiction and allow them to get a divorce.
The judge was exactly correct in his handling of the matter.

A little ancient history - from the 1950s, that is. After
WWII, Americans began to try different ways of getting
divorces without having to prove either adultery or extreme
cruelty, the only grounds available at the time. First,
people went to Mexico and got quickie divorces there based
on residency requirements of mere days. After initial
resistance from a number of states to those divorces on the
basis that there was no real connection with the
jurisdiction, New York recognized the foreign divorces.
Then Nevada went into the divorce business with a 14 days
residency requirement. Business boomed in Reno and other
cities and the other 47 states found that they could not
toss off Nevada divorces the way they did Mexican divorces.
The reason was the Full Faith and Credit Clause. Once it
became apparent that anyone wanting a divorce on the basis
of irrevocable breakdown of the marriage could do so in
Nevada, the dam broke. By the end of the 60s, just about
every state had revised its divorce laws to provide for
"no-fault" divorce.

The force of the Full Faith and Credit Clause is just now
beginning to be felt in the area of same sex marriage. At
least as to divorce and probate matters, it is going to
compel every state to recognize marriages made in other
states. I should note that Connecticut, unlike
Massachusetts, does not have a residency requirement for
getting married here. As a result, Greenwich is doing a
booming marriage business with people coming from New York.

Mike Schilling

unread,

Oct 13, 2009, 4:15:27 PM10/13/09

to

Francis A. Miniter wrote:
>
> The force of the Full Faith and Credit Clause is just now
> beginning to be felt in the area of same sex marriage.

FFaC has never applied to marriage. If it did, the couple in Loving
vs. Virginia could have simply gotten married in another state, rather
than having to appeal their case to the Supreme Court.

William December Starr

unread,

Oct 13, 2009, 5:01:17 PM10/13/09

to

In article <hb2n50$snr$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
"Mike Schilling" <mscotts...@hotmail.com> said:

You are mistaken as to the facts of _Loving v. Virginia_, 388 U.S. 1
(1967), <http://tinyurl.com/6evy6>,
<http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=388&invol=1>.

To quote from the decision itself, written by Chief Justice Warren:

In June 1958, two residents of Virginia, Mildred Jeter, a Negro
woman, and Richard Loving, a white man, were married in the
District of Columbia pursuant to its laws. Shortly after their
marriage, the Lovings returned to Virginia and established
their marital abode in Caroline County. At the October Term,
1958, of the Circuit Court of Caroline County, a grand jury
issued an indictment charging the Lovings with violating
Virginia's ban on interracial marriages. On January 6, 1959,
the Lovings pleaded guilty to the charge and were sentenced to
one year in jail; however, the trial judge suspended the
sentence for a period of 25 years on the condition that the
Lovings leave the State and not return to Virginia together for
25 years.

The Lovings then moved back to the District of Columbia and appealed
their conviction in Virginia's courts, while also seeking to have a
federal court declare the Virginia laws unconstitutional. The
federal court decided to hold off until the state court appeals were
completed. When Virginia's highest court upheld the convictions,
the U.S. Supreme Court, as best as I can tell from the record, chose
to reach down and take the case directly from the lower federal court.

-- wds

Mike Schilling

unread,

Oct 13, 2009, 5:14:34 PM10/13/09

to

OK, I should have said more generally "appeal to the federal courts".
My main point, though, that FFaC doesn't apply to marriages, stands.
The case was decided on due process and equal protection grounds; FFaC
was not an issue.

Francis A. Miniter

unread,

Oct 13, 2009, 9:19:52 PM10/13/09

to

Mike Schilling wrote:
> Francis A. Miniter wrote:
>> The force of the Full Faith and Credit Clause is just now
>> beginning to be felt in the area of same sex marriage.
>
> FFaC has never applied to marriage.

Wrong. See _Williams v. North Carolina_ , 317 U.S. 287, 63
S.Ct. 207, 87 L.Ed. 279, 143 A.L.R. 1273 (1942), revisited
in 325 U.S. 226, 65 S.Ct. 1092 (1945) without modification
of the basic principle that a state with power to grant a
divorce is entitled to full faith and credit. _Sherrer v.
Sherrer_ , 334 U.S. 343, 68 S.Ct. 1087, 92 L.Ed. 1429 (1948)
put the quietus to that question. A further gloss on the
subject - disallowing third party attacks on such divorces -
was made in Johnson v. Muelberger, 340 U.S. 581, 71 S.Ct.
474 (1951). After that it was black letter law and not
challenged again.

> If it did, the couple in Loving
> vs. Virginia could have simply gotten married in another state, rather
> than having to appeal their case to the Supreme Court.
>

Wrong again. Please read _Loving v. Virginia_, 388 U.S. 1,
87 S. Ct. 1817; 18 L. Ed. 2d 1010 (1967). The Lovings did
in fact leave Virginia to go to D.C. to get married. The
problem arose when they returned as a married couple to
Virginia and were prosecuted as criminals under the Virginia
miscegenation laws, with the authorities actually using
their marriage certificate as evidence of the crime. It was
only after the Virginia Supreme Court upheld their criminal
convictions that the case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme
Court.

Francis A. Miniter

unread,

Oct 13, 2009, 9:26:02 PM10/13/09

to

Well, they had no choice but to appeal to the U.S. Supreme
Court. The Virginia Supreme Court had upheld their criminal
conviction. They had no further route of appeal except to
the Supremes. By the way, they would not have been allowed
to take the case to the U.S. District Courts, because the
federal laws regarding jurisdiction, dating from 1792, allow
only appeals to the Supremes from the highest court of the
state in which a judgment may be had,.

> My main point, though, that FFaC doesn't apply to marriages, stands.
> The case was decided on due process and equal protection grounds; FFaC
> was not an issue.
>
>

Still wrong. See my post of a few minutes ago. Loving was
not a case of recognition of foreign marriage case.
Virginia, as I said, used their marriage certificate as
evidence that the crime of miscegenation occurred. But
there are plenty other full faith and credit cases involving
divorce. Read the cases I cited.

Mike Schilling

unread,

Oct 13, 2009, 9:37:03 PM10/13/09

to

Francis A. Miniter wrote:
> Mike Schilling wrote:
>> Francis A. Miniter wrote:
>>> The force of the Full Faith and Credit Clause is just now
>>> beginning to be felt in the area of same sex marriage.
>>
>> FFaC has never applied to marriage.
>
>
> Wrong. See _Williams v. North Carolina_ , 317 U.S. 287, 63
> S.Ct. 207, 87 L.Ed. 279, 143 A.L.R. 1273 (1942), revisited
> in 325 U.S. 226, 65 S.Ct. 1092 (1945) without modification
> of the basic principle that a state with power to grant a
> divorce is entitled to full faith and credit. _Sherrer v.
> Sherrer_ , 334 U.S. 343, 68 S.Ct. 1087, 92 L.Ed. 1429 (1948)
> put the quietus to that question. A further gloss on the
> subject - disallowing third party attacks on such divorces -
> was made in Johnson v. Muelberger, 340 U.S. 581, 71 S.Ct.
> 474 (1951). After that it was black letter law and not
> challenged again.
>

Those are divorces, not marriages.

>
>> If it did, the couple in Loving
>> vs. Virginia could have simply gotten married in another state,
>> rather than having to appeal their case to the Supreme Court.
>>
>
> Wrong again. Please read _Loving v. Virginia_, 388 U.S. 1,
> 87 S. Ct. 1817; 18 L. Ed. 2d 1010 (1967). The Lovings did
> in fact leave Virginia to go to D.C. to get married. The
> problem arose when they returned as a married couple to
> Virginia and were prosecuted as criminals under the Virginia
> miscegenation laws, with the authorities actually using
> their marriage certificate as evidence of the crime. It was
> only after the Virginia Supreme Court upheld their criminal
> convictions that the case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme
> Court.

They were married legally in DC but Virginia did not recognize that
marriage as legal. That's a violation of FFaC. When the Supreme
Court overturned Virginia's Racial Integrity Act, the grounds were
Equal Protection and Due Process, not the fact that is violated FFaC.

Francis A. Miniter

unread,

Oct 13, 2009, 9:39:47 PM10/13/09

to

P.S. Why would you think that the Full Faith and Credit
Clause would not apply to marriage? The language of the
section does not make any limitations on the breadth of the
provision.

Mike Schilling

unread,

Oct 13, 2009, 9:40:10 PM10/13/09

to

Francis A. Miniter wrote:

> Still wrong. See my post of a few minutes ago.

And my reply to that.

Mike Schilling

unread,

Oct 13, 2009, 9:42:33 PM10/13/09

to

Francis A. Miniter wrote:

>
> P.S. Why would you think that the Full Faith and Credit
> Clause would not apply to marriage? The language of the
> section does not make any limitations on the breadth of the
> provision.

I don't know why it doesn't, but it never has. E.g. if it did, DOMA
would be clearly unconstitutional.

Francis A. Miniter

unread,

Oct 13, 2009, 9:54:43 PM10/13/09

to

Mike Schilling wrote:
> Francis A. Miniter wrote:
>> Mike Schilling wrote:
>>> Francis A. Miniter wrote:
>>>> The force of the Full Faith and Credit Clause is just now
>>>> beginning to be felt in the area of same sex marriage.
>>> FFaC has never applied to marriage.
>>
>> Wrong. See _Williams v. North Carolina_ , 317 U.S. 287, 63
>> S.Ct. 207, 87 L.Ed. 279, 143 A.L.R. 1273 (1942), revisited
>> in 325 U.S. 226, 65 S.Ct. 1092 (1945) without modification
>> of the basic principle that a state with power to grant a
>> divorce is entitled to full faith and credit. _Sherrer v.
>> Sherrer_ , 334 U.S. 343, 68 S.Ct. 1087, 92 L.Ed. 1429 (1948)
>> put the quietus to that question. A further gloss on the
>> subject - disallowing third party attacks on such divorces -
>> was made in Johnson v. Muelberger, 340 U.S. 581, 71 S.Ct.
>> 474 (1951). After that it was black letter law and not
>> challenged again.
>>
>
> Those are divorces, not marriages.

And divorces do not come from marriages???? Divorces do not
affect marital status? Do you think the Supreme Court did
not understand that the underlying question was the ability
of any state to affect marital status of a person and have
that recognized in the rest of the states???? Before you
answer so quickly, you should have read the cases I cited.
For instance, Williams v. North Carolina, 317 U. S. 287 at
298-299:

"Divorce decrees are more than just in personam judgments.
They involve the marital status of the parties. Domicil
creates a relationship to the state which is adequate for
numerous exercises of state power. . . . Each state as a
sovereign has a rightful and legitimate concern in the
marital status of persons domiciled within its borders."

And again at 301:

"Certainly if decrees of a state altering the marital status
of its domiciliaries are not valid throughout the Union even
though the requirements of procedural due process are wholly
met, a rule would be fostered which could not help but bring
'considerable disaster to innocent persons' . . . ."

The Supreme Court knew exactly what it was affecting.

Really, read first, then post.

>
>>> If it did, the couple in Loving
>>> vs. Virginia could have simply gotten married in another state,
>>> rather than having to appeal their case to the Supreme Court.
>>>
>> Wrong again. Please read _Loving v. Virginia_, 388 U.S. 1,
>> 87 S. Ct. 1817; 18 L. Ed. 2d 1010 (1967). The Lovings did
>> in fact leave Virginia to go to D.C. to get married. The
>> problem arose when they returned as a married couple to
>> Virginia and were prosecuted as criminals under the Virginia
>> miscegenation laws, with the authorities actually using
>> their marriage certificate as evidence of the crime. It was
>> only after the Virginia Supreme Court upheld their criminal
>> convictions that the case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme
>> Court.
>
> They were married legally in DC but Virginia did not recognize that
> marriage as legal. That's a violation of FFaC. When the Supreme
> Court overturned Virginia's Racial Integrity Act, the grounds were
> Equal Protection and Due Process, not the fact that is violated FFaC.
>
>

You have wholly missed the point and that is because you
refuse to actually take a few minutes and read the case.
The Lovings were prosecuted under § 20-58 of the Virginia Code:

"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 § 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 you see, VIRGINIA RECOGNIZED THE MARRIAGE TOOK PLACE. IT
DID NOT MAKE A g-d DIFFERENCE!!!

Francis A. Miniter

unread,

Oct 13, 2009, 10:13:40 PM10/13/09

to

For the third (fourth?) time, _please_ read the Supreme
Court cases I cited which say the opposite of what you say.
You completely do not understand.

As to DOMA, the argument for its legitimacy comes from the
second sentence of the Full Faith and Credit Clause, which
provides "And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the
manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be
proved, and the effect thereof." Now that says _general_
laws, though, and DOMA is clearly not a general law, but one
of specific application, and it can be argued that it only
gives Congress the power to say - generally - how full faith
and credit is to be given. So, that is a double-edged sword
and many are arguing that Congress exceeded its power under
Art. IV, Sec. 1. There are also due process and equal
protection arguments against DOMA.

It takes a while for cases to get to the Supreme Court. In
the case of DOMA, while it was passed in 1996, it has only
been in the last few years that states have allowed same sex
marriages, so the issue which it addressed in advance is
much more recent. Then cases have to go first to the trial
courts, then the state or federal appeals courts, and then
to the Supremes. As it is, one federal judge has declared
DOMA unconstitutional.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/02/gay-marriage.html
There are cases working their way toward the Supreme Court.
One thing you should understand about Supreme Court
jurisdiction. There are cases they have to take (appeals),
and cases that they may choose to take or not take
(certiorari). Decisions from the Circuit Courts of Appeal
upholding federal laws are in the latter category. Often,
the Supremes use that power to decline cases until the
various circuits have had time to make a number of
conflicting decisions. The reason? So that the Supremes
get to better understand the issues before they have to
decide. They do not have that liberty if the circuit court
of appeals declares the federal law unconstitutional.

Mike Schilling

unread,

Oct 13, 2009, 10:17:55 PM10/13/09

to

Francis A. Miniter wrote:
> Mike Schilling wrote:
>> Francis A. Miniter wrote:
>>> Mike Schilling wrote:
>>>> Francis A. Miniter wrote:
>>>>> The force of the Full Faith and Credit Clause is just now
>>>>> beginning to be felt in the area of same sex marriage.
>>>> FFaC has never applied to marriage.
>>>
>>> Wrong. See _Williams v. North Carolina_ , 317 U.S. 287, 63
>>> S.Ct. 207, 87 L.Ed. 279, 143 A.L.R. 1273 (1942), revisited
>>> in 325 U.S. 226, 65 S.Ct. 1092 (1945) without modification
>>> of the basic principle that a state with power to grant a
>>> divorce is entitled to full faith and credit. _Sherrer v.
>>> Sherrer_ , 334 U.S. 343, 68 S.Ct. 1087, 92 L.Ed. 1429 (1948)
>>> put the quietus to that question. A further gloss on the
>>> subject - disallowing third party attacks on such divorces -
>>> was made in Johnson v. Muelberger, 340 U.S. 581, 71 S.Ct.
>>> 474 (1951). After that it was black letter law and not
>>> challenged again.
>>>
>>
>> Those are divorces, not marriages.
>
> And divorces do not come from marriages????

Divorces and marriages are different things. Related but different.
Honestly.

>
> So you see, VIRGINIA RECOGNIZED THE MARRIAGE TOOK PLACE. IT
> DID NOT MAKE A g-d DIFFERENCE!!!

Of course it took place. There was a license and everything. Maybe
even pictures. Did FFaC make it legal in Virginia? Nope.

:Look. Show me a place where a state was forced to recognize a
marriage as legal because of FFaC and we'll talk. Oh, and if you'd
like to explain why FFaC doesn't make DOMA facially unconstitutional,
I'd be interested in that too.

Francis A. Miniter

unread,

Oct 13, 2009, 10:42:31 PM10/13/09

to

Mike Schilling wrote:
> Francis A. Miniter wrote:
>> Mike Schilling wrote:
>>> Francis A. Miniter wrote:
>>>> Mike Schilling wrote:
>>>>> Francis A. Miniter wrote:
>>>>>> The force of the Full Faith and Credit Clause is just now
>>>>>> beginning to be felt in the area of same sex marriage.
>>>>> FFaC has never applied to marriage.
>>>> Wrong. See _Williams v. North Carolina_ , 317 U.S. 287, 63
>>>> S.Ct. 207, 87 L.Ed. 279, 143 A.L.R. 1273 (1942), revisited
>>>> in 325 U.S. 226, 65 S.Ct. 1092 (1945) without modification
>>>> of the basic principle that a state with power to grant a
>>>> divorce is entitled to full faith and credit. _Sherrer v.
>>>> Sherrer_ , 334 U.S. 343, 68 S.Ct. 1087, 92 L.Ed. 1429 (1948)
>>>> put the quietus to that question. A further gloss on the
>>>> subject - disallowing third party attacks on such divorces -
>>>> was made in Johnson v. Muelberger, 340 U.S. 581, 71 S.Ct.
>>>> 474 (1951). After that it was black letter law and not
>>>> challenged again.
>>>>
>>> Those are divorces, not marriages.
>> And divorces do not come from marriages????
>
> Divorces and marriages are different things. Related but different.
> Honestly.

They all come under marital status. See my quotes from
Williams which you conveniently deleted.

>
>> So you see, VIRGINIA RECOGNIZED THE MARRIAGE TOOK PLACE. IT
>> DID NOT MAKE A g-d DIFFERENCE!!!
>
> Of course it took place. There was a license and everything. Maybe
> even pictures. Did FFaC make it legal in Virginia? Nope.

Again, you are failing to understand. They were prosecuted
under a criminal law. Even if the issue of full faith and
credit had been before it, the Supremes would not have had
to decide that issue. They had more than enough room under
the equal protection and due process clauses. Courts as a
matter of course will not decide issues that they do not
need to reach if other issues are decisive. Besides,
appellate courts do not argue issues that were not argued in
the courts below them. In Loving, the decision of the
Virginia Supreme Court was that the state law did not
violate equal protection. The ACLU had brought the Virginia
state appeal on that ground. They wanted to show that race
based restrictions on marriage were unconstitutional under
the equal protection clause. Using the full faith and
credit clause would not have achieved that. So, the Supreme
Court could not have ruled on an issue that was not argued
either below or in the Supreme Court itself.

>
> :Look. Show me a place where a state was forced to recognize a
> marriage as legal because of FFaC and we'll talk. Oh, and if you'd
> like to explain why FFaC doesn't make DOMA facially unconstitutional,
> I'd be interested in that too.
>

Why do you think Williams came up? What do you think the
court had in mind in the quote from page 301? Did you
bother to read it before you snipped it? For the last time,
do your assigned homework before you post.

Francis A. Miniter

unread,

Oct 13, 2009, 11:04:28 PM10/13/09

to

No. DOMA, if it is not repealed, will fall to an equal
protection argument and the reasoning will be parallel to
the reasoning in Loving. That is the simplest way to attack
it. the FF&C argument only comes up in situations involving
two states and the person challenging the law. You will
notice that the Texas judge did not use DOMA to avoid the
divorce issue. Now it is possible that the appeal to be
taken by the Texas Attorney-General will bring DOMA into the
picture, but I do not know if it was so argued in the trial
court and that could limit the appealability of that issue
in the higher courts.

David DeLaney

unread,

Oct 13, 2009, 10:00:37 PM10/13/09

to

DOMA _is_ clearly unconstitutional. The problems are that a) nothing actually
STOPS Congress, or state legislatures or city councils, etc., from passing
laws that are unconstitutional, and b) nobody has actually taken the steps
needed to get DOMA struck DOWN as unconstitutional ... which steps do NOT
involve the legislative or executive branches, as everyone knows.

Dave

Mike Schilling

unread,

Oct 14, 2009, 1:20:54 AM10/14/09

to

Francis A. Miniter wrote:
> Mike Schilling wrote:
>> Francis A. Miniter wrote:
>>
>>> P.S. Why would you think that the Full Faith and Credit
>>> Clause would not apply to marriage? The language of the
>>> section does not make any limitations on the breadth of the
>>> provision.
>>
>> I don't know why it doesn't, but it never has. E.g. if it did,
>> DOMA
>> would be clearly unconstitutional.
>>
>>
>
> For the third (fourth?) time, _please_ read the Supreme
> Court cases I cited which say the opposite of what you say.
> You completely do not understand.

If I'm wrong, point out where FFaC has been used to force a state to
recognize a marriage.

Mike Schilling

unread,

Oct 14, 2009, 1:24:12 AM10/14/09

to

Right. They don't aply because they're about divorce, not marriage.
I never denied that FFaC has been used in divorces.

>
>>
>>> So you see, VIRGINIA RECOGNIZED THE MARRIAGE TOOK PLACE. IT
>>> DID NOT MAKE A g-d DIFFERENCE!!!
>>
>> Of course it took place. There was a license and everything.
>> Maybe
>> even pictures. Did FFaC make it legal in Virginia? Nope.
>
> Again, you are failing to understand. They were prosecuted
> under a criminal law.

If a marriage performed in state A is illegal in state B, A isn't
exactly honoring that marriage, is it?

Mike Schilling

unread,

Oct 14, 2009, 1:26:16 AM10/14/09

to

Francis A. Miniter wrote:
> Mike Schilling wrote:
>> Francis A. Miniter wrote:
>>
>>> P.S. Why would you think that the Full Faith and Credit
>>> Clause would not apply to marriage? The language of the
>>> section does not make any limitations on the breadth of the
>>> provision.
>>
>> I don't know why it doesn't, but it never has. E.g. if it did,
>> DOMA
>> would be clearly unconstitutional.
>>
>
> No. DOMA, if it is not repealed, will fall to an equal
> protection argument and the reasoning will be parallel to
> the reasoning in Loving.

You think Kennedy will vote that way? None of the four assholes will.

Mike Schilling

unread,

Oct 14, 2009, 1:28:38 AM10/14/09

to

David DeLaney wrote:
> Mike Schilling <mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Francis A. Miniter wrote:
>>> P.S. Why would you think that the Full Faith and Credit
>>> Clause would not apply to marriage? The language of the
>>> section does not make any limitations on the breadth of the
>>> provision.
>>
>> I don't know why it doesn't, but it never has. E.g. if it did,
>> DOMA
>> would be clearly unconstitutional.
>
> DOMA _is_ clearly unconstitutional. The problems are that a) nothing
> actually STOPS Congress, or state legislatures or city councils,
> etc., from passing laws that are unconstitutional, and b) nobody has
> actually taken the steps needed to get DOMA struck DOWN as
> unconstitutional ... which steps do NOT involve the legislative or
> executive branches, as everyone knows.

DOMA has been around since 1996, and here's been same-sex marriage to
test it with since 2004. What's holding things up?

Butch Malahide

unread,

Oct 14, 2009, 2:35:51 AM10/14/09

to

On Oct 13, 9:00 pm, d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney) wrote:
> DOMA _is_ clearly unconstitutional. The problems are that a) nothing actually
> STOPS Congress, or state legislatures or city councils, etc., from passing
> laws that are unconstitutional

Nothing stops them? What about their oath to support and defend the
constitution?

Evelyn Leeper

unread,

Oct 14, 2009, 11:04:45 AM10/14/09

to

Well, yes, I think we're in complete agreement here.

--
Evelyn C. Leeper
I don't need a friend who changes when I change and who nods
when I nod; my shadow does that much better. -Plutarch

Francis A. Miniter

unread,

Oct 14, 2009, 11:11:04 AM10/14/09

to

Evelyn Leeper wrote:
> Mike Schilling wrote:
>> Francis A. Miniter wrote:
>>
>>> P.S. Why would you think that the Full Faith and Credit
>>> Clause would not apply to marriage? The language of the
>>> section does not make any limitations on the breadth of the
>>> provision.
>>
>> I don't know why it doesn't, but it never has. E.g. if it did, DOMA
>> would be clearly unconstitutional.
>
>
> Well, yes, I think we're in complete agreement here.
>

Hi Evelyn,

He has no clue what he is talking about. See my two posts
in response to this one.

Francis A. Miniter

unread,

Oct 14, 2009, 11:14:20 AM10/14/09

to

You are hopeless. I have tried to be patient, but you won't
even go to the sources. I don't know if you find them too
difficult or what. But unless you read them and unless you
can understand that marriage and divorce are two sides of
the same coin - marital status - and unless you study page
311 of the Williams case, it is useless to discuss this
further with you.

Francis A. Miniter

unread,

Oct 14, 2009, 11:15:25 AM10/14/09

to

I guess you didn't bother to read my posts from two hours
before you posted the above.

Francis A. Miniter

unread,

Oct 14, 2009, 11:22:32 AM10/14/09

to

David DeLaney wrote:
> Mike Schilling <mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Francis A. Miniter wrote:
>>> P.S. Why would you think that the Full Faith and Credit
>>> Clause would not apply to marriage? The language of the
>>> section does not make any limitations on the breadth of the provision.
>> I don't know why it doesn't, but it never has. E.g. if it did, DOMA
>> would be clearly unconstitutional.
>
> DOMA _is_ clearly unconstitutional. The problems are that a) nothing actually
> STOPS Congress, or state legislatures or city councils, etc., from passing
> laws that are unconstitutional,

Until tested in a case and controversy, it is not that easy
to determine constitutionality of a law (or proposed law).
That is why the Supreme Court exists and that is why the
decision in Marbury v. Madison is what it is.

> and b) nobody has actually taken the steps
> needed to get DOMA struck DOWN as unconstitutional ... which steps do NOT
> involve the legislative or executive branches, as everyone knows.
>

Wrong. There are plenty of cases that are on their way
through the courts testing DOMA. See my post in response to
Mike.

Mike Schilling

unread,

Oct 14, 2009, 11:23:48 AM10/14/09

to

Useless is right.

Mike Schilling

unread,

Oct 14, 2009, 11:24:43 AM10/14/09

to

You explained in detail why no test cases have launched?

Mike Schilling

unread,

Oct 14, 2009, 11:30:00 AM10/14/09

to

Francis A. Miniter wrote:
>
> You are hopeless. I have tried to be patient, but you won't
> even go to the sources. I don't know if you find them too
> difficult or what. But unless you read them and unless you
> can understand that marriage and divorce are two sides of
> the same coin - marital status - and unless you study page
> 311 of the Williams case, it is useless to discuss this
> further with you.

"The fly in the ointment was that nobody bothered to check whether the
Full Faith and Credit Clause had actually ever been read to require
one state to recognize another state's marriages. It hasn't." -- Lea
Brilmayer, Howard M. Holtzmann Professor of International Law at Yale

http://www.law.yale.edu/news/4174.htm

Francis A. Miniter

unread,

Oct 14, 2009, 12:41:40 PM10/14/09

to

Well, at least you cited something for once. The article, I
note, is by a professor of international law, not
constitutional law. More important, though, is that the
author fails to cite a single case regarding the FF&C clause
and marital status. She does not even try to distinguish
Williams, for instance, even though the court clearly stated
it was dealing with all aspects of marital status. As I
quoted from the Supreme Court previously:

"Certainly if decrees of a state altering the marital status
of its domiciliaries are not valid throughout the Union even
though the requirements of procedural due process are wholly
met, a rule would be fostered which could not help but bring
'considerable disaster to innocent persons' . . . ."

Williams v. North Carolina, 317 U. S. 287 at 301.

Frankly, the words of the Supreme Court carry far more
weight than a short opinion article that does not review the
case law.

West's lists lists about 50+ pages of case headnotes on the
application of FF&C to matrimonial and family relations
cases. There is no question but that FF&C applies to marital
law. You cannot pretend that there is some aspect of it
that can be carved out from this broad jurisdiction. Your
arguments make no sense in the real world of law. By the
way, FF&C has even been applied to force a state which does
not recognize common law marriage (Louisiana) to give effect
to such a marriage validly contracted in another state.
Parish v. Minvielle, 207 So.2d 684 (La.App. 1969). That is
right on point for the same sex marriage issue.

Mike Schilling

unread,

Oct 14, 2009, 12:50:15 PM10/14/09

to

Francis A. Miniter wrote:
> Mike Schilling wrote:
>> Francis A. Miniter wrote:
>>> You are hopeless. I have tried to be patient, but you won't
>>> even go to the sources. I don't know if you find them too
>>> difficult or what. But unless you read them and unless you
>>> can understand that marriage and divorce are two sides of
>>> the same coin - marital status - and unless you study page
>>> 311 of the Williams case, it is useless to discuss this
>>> further with you.
>>
>> "The fly in the ointment was that nobody bothered to check whether
>> the Full Faith and Credit Clause had actually ever been read to
>> require one state to recognize another state's marriages. It
>> hasn't." -- Lea Brilmayer, Howard M. Holtzmann Professor of
>> International Law at Yale http://www.law.yale.edu/news/4174.htm
>>
>>
> Well, at least you cited something for once.

Yeah, I thought you'd prefer argument from authority to mere logic.

Francis A. Miniter

unread,

Oct 14, 2009, 1:05:57 PM10/14/09

to

The law may or may not be logical, but you have to know the
difference. And a professor's whim is not the law. What
the courts say is the law. And that you have not bothered
yet to examine. That is nothing but willful ignorance,
especially when you have been even told where to look and
been given excerpts from the text.

In any case, it is you who is not being logical. As I
pointed out before, the FF&C Clause contains no exceptions.
It is absolute in its application. You may or may not
like that, but the purpose of the constitutional provision
was "to alter the status of the several states as
independent foreign sovereignties, each free to ignore
obligations created under the laws or by the judicial
proceedings of the others, and to make them integral parts
of a single nation throughout which a remedy upon a just
obligation might be demanded as of right, irrespective of
the state of its origin." Milwaukee County v. M.E. White
Co., 296 U.S. 268, 276-77 (1935).

Given that rationale, logic demands that there is no
individual aspect of marital law that can possibly be
excluded from its scope.

Mike Schilling

unread,

Oct 14, 2009, 1:17:28 PM10/14/09

to

Francis A. Miniter wrote:

>
> In any case, it is you who is not being logical. As I
> pointed out before, the FF&C Clause contains no exceptions.
> It is absolute in its application. You may or may not
> like that,

What does "like that" have to do with anything? I have no agenda
here.

> Given that rationale, logic demands that there is no
> individual aspect of marital law that can possibly be
> excluded from its scope.

Yet as the professor points out, it hasn't been applied to marriage,
as opposed to divorce. (Your point about common-law marruiage appears
to be an exception.) That's a fact, whether you like it or not.

Francis A. Miniter

unread,

Oct 14, 2009, 1:17:58 PM10/14/09

to

Your ability to resist reality is truly impressive.

Mike Schilling

unread,

Oct 14, 2009, 1:21:43 PM10/14/09

to

Francis A. Miniter wrote:
> Mike Schilling wrote:
>> Francis A. Miniter wrote:
>>
>>> In any case, it is you who is not being logical. As I
>>> pointed out before, the FF&C Clause contains no exceptions.
>>> It is absolute in its application. You may or may not
>>> like that,
>>
>> What does "like that" have to do with anything? I have no agenda
>> here.
>>
>>> Given that rationale, logic demands that there is no
>>> individual aspect of marital law that can possibly be
>>> excluded from its scope.
>>
>> Yet as the professor points out, it hasn't been applied to
>> marriage,
>> as opposed to divorce. (Your point about common-law marruiage
>> appears to be an exception.) That's a fact, whether you like it or
>> not.
> Your ability to resist reality is truly impressive.

I'll ask for about the fourth time: show a case where FFaC was used to
force a state to recognize a marriage. Your point about common-law
marriage was one, I'll give you that. Any others?

David DeLaney

unread,

Oct 14, 2009, 12:04:41 PM10/14/09

to

David DeLaney <d...@gatekeeper.vic.com> wrote:
>Mike Schilling <mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>Francis A. Miniter wrote:
>>> P.S. Why would you think that the Full Faith and Credit
>>> Clause would not apply to marriage? The language of the
>>> section does not make any limitations on the breadth of the provision.
>>
>>I don't know why it doesn't, but it never has. E.g. if it did, DOMA
>>would be clearly unconstitutional.
>
>DOMA _is_ clearly unconstitutional. The problems are that a) nothing actually
>STOPS Congress, or state legislatures or city councils, etc., from passing
>laws that are unconstitutional, and b) nobody has actually taken the steps
>needed to get DOMA struck DOWN as unconstitutional ... which steps do NOT
>involve the legislative or executive branches, as everyone knows.

(Or, as another post in the thread notes, amend b) to "nobody has actually
FINISHED taking the steps needed to...")

David DeLaney

unread,

Oct 14, 2009, 12:06:14 PM10/14/09

to

If we could toss people out of Congress, or even somewhat inconvenience them,
for breaking oaths, it'd be a far different body. (Yeah yeah, technically
there's impeachment proceedings. Good luck even getting one -started-.)

State legislatures and city councils have even fewer controls on them
directly...

David DeLaney

unread,

Oct 14, 2009, 12:08:14 PM10/14/09

to

Francis A. Miniter <fami...@comcast.net> wrote:

>David DeLaney wrote:
>> DOMA _is_ clearly unconstitutional. The problems are that a) nothing actually
>> STOPS Congress, or state legislatures or city councils, etc., from passing
>> laws that are unconstitutional,
>
>Until tested in a case and controversy, it is not that easy
>to determine constitutionality of a law (or proposed law).

_Exactly_. So trying to have some sort of "wait wait don't tell me, that
violates ... section Q of the Constitution, you can't put it up for debate"
rules in with the rules of order Would Not End Well.

>That is why the Supreme Court exists and that is why the
>decision in Marbury v. Madison is what it is.

Yep.

>> and b) nobody has actually taken the steps
>> needed to get DOMA struck DOWN as unconstitutional ... which steps do NOT
>> involve the legislative or executive branches, as everyone knows.
>
>Wrong. There are plenty of cases that are on their way
>through the courts testing DOMA. See my post in response to Mike.

Well, more "needs tweaking", to 'nobody has actually _finished_ taking the
steps needed'. I forgot that several had started along the path already.

Francis A. Miniter

unread,

Oct 14, 2009, 3:11:43 PM10/14/09

to

In re May's Estate, 305 N.Y. 486 (1953), couple went to
Rhode Island to get married because NY did not allow
marriages of uncle and niece. Now do your own homework.

Robert A. Woodward

unread,

Oct 15, 2009, 12:49:58 AM10/15/09

to

In article <hb57rf$1dn$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,

Now this does sound analogous to the Loving case. Did New York
prosecute them for incest?

--
Robert Woodward <robe...@drizzle.com>
<http://www.drizzle.com/~robertaw>

Francis A. Miniter

unread,

Oct 15, 2009, 12:10:48 PM10/15/09

to

No, the issue came up years after the survivor of the two of
them died and in connection with assets of the estates.

Stanley Moore

unread,

Oct 15, 2009, 6:34:25 PM10/15/09

to

"Francis A. Miniter" <fami...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:hb2mqb$pq9$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Stanley Moore wrote:
>> "William December Starr" <wds...@panix.com> wrote in message
>> news:haibgc$hpj$1...@panix3.panix.com...
>>> In article <14CdnQ69c4jAaVXX...@giganews.com>,
>>> "Stanley Moore" <smoo...@comcast.net> said:
>>>
>>>> Now that was a truly hateful screed <G>. Texas is like nowhere
>>>> else. Yes, it has problems; what place doesn't? Yes, there are a
>>>> few blowhards; where can you not find them? Sure there are some
>>>> drug dealers as well as very nice hardworking Hispanic
>>>> families. But all in all there is nowhere I'd rather live. You
>>>> have immense diversity of landscape, cultural orientation, and
>>>> Texas is well renowned for its friendly people. Take care
>>> I noticed this a few days ago...
>>>
>>> <http://tinyurl.com/yboo6jb>
>>>
>>> <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/02/texas-judge-rules-gay-mar_n_307532.html>
>>>
>>> Texas Judge Rules Gay-Marriage Ban Violates U.S. Constitution
>>> MATT CURRY | 10/ 1/09 11:43 PM | AP
>>>
>>> DALLAS -- A Texas judge cleared the way for two Dallas men to
>>> get a divorce, ruling Thursday that Texas' ban on same-sex
>>> marriage violates the constitutional guarantee to equal
>>> protection under the law.
>>>
>>> Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott said he'd appeal the ruling,
>>> which he labeled an attempt to strike down the ban approved by
>>> voters in 2005.
>>>
>>> "The laws and constitution of the State of Texas define
>>> marriage as an institution involving one man and one woman,"
>>> Abbott said in a written statement. "Today's ruling purports to
>>> strike down that constitutional definition - despite the fact
>>> that it was recently adopted by 75 percent of Texas voters."
>>>
>>> [ remainder of article deleted ]
>>>
>>> ...which gives the impression that Texas is blessed with an Attorney
>>> General who believes that a 75% plebiscite by state voters suffices
>>> to override the United States Constitution.
>>>
>>> (Oh, and I see that judges are elected there too -- a malfunction
>>> that's hardly unique to Texas, of course -- and this particular
>>> Dallas County judge, a Democrat, is up for reelection in 2010.
>>> I predict a sedate, civilized campaign.)
>>>
>>> -- wds
>>>
>>
>> It is not entierly clear that Texas's (and many other state)
>> constitutionals bans on gay marriage do violate the US Constitution. On
>> the amendment in question I voted against as I would like to get married
>> but I expect it will be a good long while until I can here in Texas. Take
>> care
>
>
> Hi Stanley,
>
> The states where courts have overturned the laws restricting marriage to
> heterosexual couples have done so on the basis of the state constitutional
> protections - which usually mirror the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th
> Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. One or more may have also invoked
> that clause, but what made the cases unappealable to the U.S. Supreme
> Court is that they were decided under the state constitutions.
>
> What the Texas Attorney General seems confused about is the difference
> between (a) a court decision allowing same sex marriages in Texas and (b)
> the obligation under Section 1 of Article IV of the U.S. Constitution to
> give "full faith and credit . . . to the public acts, records, and
> judicial proceedings of every other state." The Texas judge had to
> recognize that this couple was married under the laws of another
> jurisdiction. Given that, and since they were domiciled in Texas, he
> would then have had to apply the law of the other jurisdiction and allow
> them to get a divorce. The judge was exactly correct in his handling of
> the matter.
>
> A little ancient history - from the 1950s, that is. After WWII, Americans
> began to try different ways of getting divorces without having to prove
> either adultery or extreme cruelty, the only grounds available at the
> time. First, people went to Mexico and got quickie divorces there based
> on residency requirements of mere days. After initial resistance from a
> number of states to those divorces on the basis that there was no real
> connection with the jurisdiction, New York recognized the foreign
> divorces. Then Nevada went into the divorce business with a 14 days
> residency requirement. Business boomed in Reno and other cities and the
> other 47 states found that they could not toss off Nevada divorces the way
> they did Mexican divorces. The reason was the Full Faith and Credit
> Clause. Once it became apparent that anyone wanting a divorce on the
> basis of irrevocable breakdown of the marriage could do so in Nevada, the
> dam broke. By the end of the 60s, just about every state had revised its
> divorce laws to provide for "no-fault" divorce.

>
> The force of the Full Faith and Credit Clause is just now beginning to be

> felt in the area of same sex marriage. At least as to divorce and probate
> matters, it is going to compel every state to recognize marriages made in
> other states. I should note that Connecticut, unlike Massachusetts, does
> not have a residency requirement for getting married here. As a result,
> Greenwich is doing a booming marriage business with people coming from New
> York.
>
> --
> Francis A. Miniter
>

But, but, but..... Didn't the passage of the Defense of Marriage Act under
Clinton nullify part of the Full Faith and Credit clause? IIRC (not being a
lawyer) that that act said states do not have to recognize marriages in
other states if the partners ore of the same sex. Correct me if I am wrong.
Take care
--
Stanley L. Moore
"The belief in a supernatural
source of evil is not necessary;
men alone are quite capable
of every wickedness."
Joseph Conrad

Stanley Moore

unread,

Oct 15, 2009, 6:41:40 PM10/15/09

to

"David DeLaney" <d...@gatekeeper.vic.com> wrote in message
news:slrnhdamk...@gatekeeper.vic.com...

> Mike Schilling <mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>Francis A. Miniter wrote:

>>> P.S. Why would you think that the Full Faith and Credit
>>> Clause would not apply to marriage? The language of the
>>> section does not make any limitations on the breadth of the provision.
>>
>>I don't know why it doesn't, but it never has. E.g. if it did, DOMA
>>would be clearly unconstitutional.
>

> DOMA _is_ clearly unconstitutional. The problems are that a) nothing
> actually
> STOPS Congress, or state legislatures or city councils, etc., from passing

> laws that are unconstitutional, and b) nobody has actually taken the steps

> needed to get DOMA struck DOWN as unconstitutional ... which steps do NOT
> involve the legislative or executive branches, as everyone knows.
>

Hasn't this problem already been forseen by legislatures all over? On the
off chance that the Defense of Marriage Act gets struck down someday
legislatures (and even George W. Bush tried on the federal level) submitted
to the people propositons to amend their state constitutions to prevent sam
sex marriage? In the run up to the vote here in Texas on this amendment that
was one argument used by proponents. If the DOMA was nullified then the
state constitution would hold sway. No need for pesky federal courts to
interfere with Texas laws. Take care

Francis A. Miniter

unread,

Oct 15, 2009, 7:08:12 PM10/15/09

to

It does say that. Legislation, however, cannot nullify the
Constitution. It only works the other way around. The very
fact that DOMA makes that declaration is grounds for
declaring it unconstitutional.