Doesn't the US Constitution require that all state respect the documents of another?

Question

Article IV - The States
Section 1 - Each State to Honor all others

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Does this mean that all state must honor all marraige contracts of other states?

Answer 1

Yes, and that is a case that should go to the Supreme Court and it will be upheld that if a gay couple is legally married in one state, they are married in all states regardless of if it is legal for gays to marry in that state or not. They didn't marry in that state, they married in a state where it was legal, so the state cannot refuse a license that was issued from another state.



The only thing I could see is if the document states that they are married in the State of Iowa, for example. However, the state could not issue one license to straight couples and another one to gay couples because of the 14th Amendment and the equal protection clause as that would NOT be equal under the law.



Edit:

Neolibs, sorry, but it sounds like the law that Clinton signed is unconstitutional. Congress and the President have no legal authority to state that the Constitution doesn't apply to something.



Keep in mind that I am a conservative Republican and base my opinion on nothing but the Constitution and the writings of the Founders at the time the Constitution was being debated. For example Madison directly addressed the issue of legal documents in Federalist Paper 42, discussing that the Federal government would insist on reciprocity in legal documents as it deals with things such as commerce. As marriage does have interstate commerce implications, such as insurance and inheritance issues, and bankruptcy issues, which is also specifically addressed in the same document, whether you or I like it or not, Article IV Section 1 has to apply. Personally, I am NOT a fan of it, but it's there and has to be dealt with in accordance with the US Constitution.



Edit

Paula, I see what you are talking about there, however to go along with that argument means that the Supreme Court never makes mistakes. I think they have proven time and time again that they do. The Dred Scott Case is an example. Another one is Brown Vs. Board of Education. "What? You are saying that the Supreme Court made a mistake in Brown Vs. Board of Education?!?! You racist pig!!!" Hold on. Brown Vs. Board of Education demonstrates that the Supreme Court can recognize when it has made errors in judgments as Brown Vs. Board of Education was actually a REVERSAL of Plessy Vs. Furguson saying that school segregation was legal.



A legal document is a legal document. The primary purpose of a legal document is to define a relationship and establish it within the rule of law mostly dealing with commerce, including marriage contracts. No one can make a case otherwise as marriage contracts have very tangible financial consequences from property rights to insurance contracts.

Answer 2

Amendment 1: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" I don't see in here where it gives any preference to Christians or anyone else. by the way many of the founding fathers were deists, not Christians. there is a big difference between a general belief in a power that can be called "god" and accepting all of the dogma that goes with any particular religion. but our founding fathers were wise enough to understand that, unlike they, many politicians and citizens can't separate their own personal beliefs from what is best for the public as a whole and democracy in general. so whats the problem? Christians and everyone else are free to worship as they want in this country, which is as it should be. i find it especially ironic that in the most free country on earth that there should still be zealots that can't bear to give the same freedoms they enjoy to others that don't think or believe as they do. do yourself a favor; get a history book and see how great things were for past nations to have their govenments involved in making laws "respecting the establishment of religion". sure you would think it fine as long as you and your friends ran the show, but what would you do when Catholics or some other brand of Christianity (or, "god forbid" another religion) took over.... you'd be SOL then. thats why Government + Religion = stupidbad its an easy formula for anyone able to think.

Answer 3

No, actually when one State enacts or interprets their own adopted Constitution in violation of the original Constitution--they are violating Federal Law. States may not interpret in violation of Federal Constitution.



The problem with that however is that many federal laws are violated previous to the basic rights of citizens being restored.



Marriage was once determined within a church and via religion--marriage is now legally contracted by the government. Good luck. Federalization of marriage.

Answer 4

Yes and no.



There is a Full Faith and Credit clause, as you rightly point out. HOWEVER, it has long been recognized that if the acts of one state are viewed by another state as against their public policy, they need not grant full faith and credit. This is why, even before the Defense of Marriage Act, which merely recognized this longstanding right, states did not have to recognize the same sex marriages of other states if they viewed them as against public policy.

Answer 5

No, it does not "mean that all state must honor all marraige contracts of other states".



There is "public policy exception" to the "full faith and credit" clause which the SCOTUS recognizes.



See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_Faith_and_Credit_Clause



In part:



Although the Court was engaged in statutory interpretation in Mills, the Court eventually characterized Mills as a constitutional decision, in the 1887 case of Chicago & Alton v. Wiggins.[13] During the following decades and centuries, the Supreme Court has recognized a "public policy exception" to both the Full Faith and Credit Clause and the accompanying federal statute. In 1939, the Court in Pacific Employers Insurance v. Industrial Accident wrote:



[T]here are some limitations upon the extent to which a state may be required by the full faith and credit clause to enforce even the judgment of another state in contravention of its own statutes or policy. See Wisconsin v. Pelican Insurance Co., 127 U.S. 265; Huntington v. Attrill, 146 U.S. 657; Finney v. Guy, 189 U.S. 335; see also Clarke v. Clarke, 178 U.S. 186; Olmsted v. Olmsted, 216 U.S. 386; Hood v. McGehee, 237 U.S. 611; cf. Gasquet v. Fenner, 247 U.S. 16. And in the case of statutes...the full faith and credit clause does not require one state to substitute for its own statute, applicable to persons and events within it, the conflicting statute of another state, even though that statute is of controlling force in the courts of the state of its enactment with respect to the same persons and events[14]



The Supreme Court continues to apply its public policy exception differently for state judgments as compared to state laws. In the 2003 case of Franchise Tax Board v. Hyatt, the Court reiterated that, "[o]ur precedent differentiates the credit owed to laws (legislative measures and common law) and to judgments."



If the legal pronouncements of one state conflict with the public policy of another state, federal courts in the past have been reluctant to force a state to enforce the pronouncements of another state in contravention of its own public policy. The public policy exception has been applied in cases of marriage ...

Answer 6

No.



In many states, the age of marriage is 16, yet those marriages aren't recognized outside those states. Only contracts where it is lawful in the other states, is the contract valid. Marriage contracts aren't valid in states that don't recognize the re-definition of the word: marriage.



Plus, Clinton signed a law making gay marriage an individual state matter, not recognized by other states.



Try again.

Answer 7

Not necessarily - this allows for the states to honor the licenses from other states but not to necessarily recognize marriage contracts implemented within their own states of similar nature.



In other words, the licenses are honored insofar as they are documents for identification and residence within another state. Yet, they exist within the frameworks of the existing laws of the state where the married person is, and do not encourage similar unions within their own state boundaries.

Answer 8

I feel it does but somehow I think it is not going to be the view of some of those people that always say the U.S. Constitution should be followed to the last letter and they will fight for it. Some times they love activist judges.

Answer 9

Typically, when a state legalizes gay marriage they include a clause in the legislation that notes it is not applicable to 4.1 and 4.2 of the constitution. This way, no controversy arises.

Answer 10

Good luck imposing that on America when gay marriage can't even pass in a state like California.

Answer 11

It actually never said that the States should obey laws created in Israel

Answer 12

yes i sure think so.