jenni_doll_1
Favorite Answer
I don't have any specific personal opinion on the subject of gay marriage, but if you want the legal answer as to why the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution has legally not thus far applied to this issue, it's because of a public policy exception.
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.[15]
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."[1]
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.
According to the Supreme Court, there is a difference between the credit owed to laws (i.e. legislative measures and common law) as compared to the credit owed to judgments. Judgments are generally entitled to greater respect than laws, in other states.
The FFACC does not apply to things which conflict with laws between states. For example, a concealed handgun license from one state does not have to be considered valid and meaningful in a state that does not permit concealed carry. There was a time that even a drivers' license was not considered transferable from one state to another. So all licenses of all kinds are not always nor have they always been protected between states by the FFACC. Licenses of entitlement have only held up under the FFACC when there has been general agreement between the states that the issue is something to which the clause should apply.
Anonymous
I have another question. How could straight marriage get full faith and credit when two out of three end in divorce. And how could we deny it to a group that has more respect for the institution than we do?
?
because people are ignorant and prejudiced. most of their arguments is that its because of religion but yet Christianity isn't the only religion allowed to get married. but if it was an actual religious issue they would've fought against the marriages of muslims and others as well. i think this is a problem because since they can't get married they cant get any tax or government benefits that they should have rights to.
i think they dont want them married cause they believe it'll stop them from boning or something and its not
Anonymous
@Pinky
At least you're being honest. Too bad that makes you look like a disgusting person.
@Jayne Savage
Then you should convince the rest of your compatriots to stop trying to ban same-sex couples from marrying.
cargo pilot III Flyin' Mayan
The Federal government has no business in the business of marriage. (But, it's all about money, taxes and central control,)