Talk:Elopement

Name?

Should be changed to elopement, the noun form. soverman 02:51 (UTC) 25 March 06

fixed. Doops | talk 13:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Trivia

What's with the sudden and randon trivia section (Germans, Indian actress...) Should be removed or integrated better into article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.146.70.240 (talk) 03:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Wandering away

In the long term care community elopement has a different meaning. It refers to a confused resident who wanders away from the facility. Could this be discussed or added to this section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.46.230.194 (talk) 15:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. --Una Smith (talk) 04:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Removed

Contrary to popular belief, the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution does not require a state to recognize a same-sex marriage, even if it is contracted one of the other United States. The Full Faith and Credit Clause applies to judgments, not to statutes. In every state, whether a marriage is valid is determined by statute. Even in a state like Massachusetts, where the highest court has determined that the statute's exclusion of same-sex couples violated the Constitution, marriage is still regulated by statute, with the unconstitutional portions excised. Whether one state recognizes another state's statutes, on the subject of marriage or any other subject, is determined by a body of law known as conflicts of laws. The United States has indicated, on numerous occasions, that a state's adherence to traditional conflicts of laws rules (i.e. the rules set forth in the First Restatement of Conflicts of Laws) does not violate the United States Constitution.

The traditional rule on the validity of a marriage is that a marriage valid at the place of celebration is valid everywhere, unless the marriage violates the strong public policy of the forum. The "public policy" exception historically has been applied to incestuous or polygamous marriages, but there is no reason why a state could not decide that a same-sex marriage violates its strong public policy, particularly in those jurisdictions where the state constitution or a state statute specifically prohibits same-sex marriages. On the other hand, a state could decide that a same-sex marriage does not violate its public policy, and recognize it, so long as it is valid at the place contracted, but the Full Faith and Credit Clause, as interpreted until now, does not require such recognition. See Whitten, "Full Faith and Credit for Dummies," 38 Creighton L. Rev. 465.

1. Poorly-sourced and cited
2. specific to USA
3. specific, lengthy discussion of "Full Faith and Credit" clause not appropriate for this article

This text could be whittled down to a sentence or three, with a reference to the Wikipedia article covering that part of US law. Better yet, it should briefly mention the issue and point at Same-sex marriage in the United States.

English Law

The statement of English law is far too superficial. The law before Lord Hardwicke's Act is far from clear, and even that Act gave legal status to marriages in Synagogues and Friends' Meeting Houses. Since then the law has been widened to permit marriages to take place in any premises, provided the premises are licensed for that purpose, and the only personal permission required by law is a licence issued by the local Registrar of Marriages. It is possible to obtain a licence from the Archbishop of Canterbury but very few people apply for one except in emergencies such as the imminent death of one of the intending spouses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.177.125.188 (talk) 09:54, 22 August 2012 (UTC)