Marriage and the Full Faith and Credit Clause

[A18]

Discuss.

[Jake]

None

[afleitch]

None. States should control and enforce their own marriage laws should they so wish.

[A18]

States should control and enforce their own marriage laws should they so wish.

What the states should be able to do is completely irrelevant. Only what they can do matters.

[J. J.]

The first four, under current law.  The "whacked out state" is called Kansas, where it's happened in the last four years.

[Emsworth]

A contract made in one state is enforceable in every other state. Marriage is, as far as the law is concerned, a type of contract. Whether Utah recognizes same-sex marriage or not, a Massachusetts "marriage" contract can be enforced in that state.

However, nothing in the full faith and credit clause requires a state to grant benefits to couples "married" in other states. To assert otherwise would be to claim that one state is entitled to legislate for another. Thus, I would say None of the Above.

The first four, under current law.  The "whacked out state" is called Kansas, where it's happened in the last four years.

The Supreme Court has generally that a marriage in one state is a marriage in another, unless the marriage contradicts the "public policy" of the latter state. The public policy exception would apply in all of the cases listed above.

[A18]

Although I'm aware of the "public policy exception," I have no clue what case it stems from. Care to enlighten?

[Emsworth]

Although I'm aware of the "public policy exception," I have no clue what case it stems from. Care to enlighten?

I don't know the case in which this principle was originally expressed. The earliest case I could find was Bradford Electric Light v. Clapper (1932).

[J. J.]

A contract made in one state is enforceable in every other state. Marriage is, as far as the law is concerned, a type of contract. Whether Utah recognizes same-sex marriage or not, a Massachusetts "marriage" contract can be enforced in that state.

However, nothing in the full faith and credit clause requires a state to grant benefits to couples "married" in other states. To assert otherwise would be to claim that one state is entitled to legislate for another. Thus, I would say None of the Above.

The first four, under current law.  The "whacked out state" is called Kansas, where it's happened in the last four years.

The Supreme Court has generally that a marriage in one state is a marriage in another, unless the marriage contradicts the "public policy" of the latter state. The public policy exception would apply in all of the cases listed above.

It didn't in Loving.

[Emsworth]

It didn't in Loving.

Loving had nothing to do with the full faith and credit clause. It was decided on equal protection grounds, which are (even under current jurisprudence) inapplicable here.

[A18]

By the way, I'm not talking about current law, under which the answer is obviously NOTA. I'm talking about the correct interpretation, in your view.

[Emsworth]

I'm talking about the correct interpretation, in your view.

Yes, my answer was based on what I believe to be the original meaning of the Constitution.

The public policy exception makes little sense. The Constitution makes it clear that "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State." It makes no exception for acts, records, and proceedings that contradict public policy; all acts, records, and proceedings are entitled to full faith and credit.

However, I do not believe that the clause requires a state to confer any particular benefits on any individual. Just because Texas issues a hunting license, it does not follow that California is required to honor it. Thus, under my interpretation of the clause, the public policy exception is not even necessary.