(sorry, wrong thread)
Historically the “Full Faith and Credit clause” has not been applied to marriage.
This is why in the past, you could be married in some states and not others. You could also be divorced in some states and not others. Remember Reno was the “Divorce capital of the United States,” but many states refused to recongnize a Nevada divorce.
You have to remember in order to be married you need a license, a license is just another word for permission. Strictly speaking marriage is not a judical act but an act of license.
Let’s look at driver’s licenses. I live in Illinois, I can drive in all 50 states, but if I move to another state, my license isn’t valid over a certain number of days. I have to get a new license from that state. Now if I move from Illinois to another states, some states will simply look at my license and if it’s valid, issue me one from their state. Other states make me take a part of the exam or the entire exam over again.
The Supreme Court throughout the years gradually has been whittling away at this and making the states less and less individual, but the reason has almost always been societal in nature. For instance, forcing states to recongize each other child support agreements. It’s in the best interest of society that children get support and not have to worry about differing state laws
Historically the Supreme Court has said if there is a valid “public policy” reason to not enforce the clause it’s OK.
The district court in Tampa recently held
So let’s look at his carefully. The key words seem to be legitimate. Race is a protected class, so is religion (Plus it’s added protection of the 1st Amendment). So barring interracial marriage would not be legitimate. But since homosexuals are not a protected class in most places, it’s legitmate to discriminate againt them. Note I said “legitimate” not “correct.”
So this ruling states that if Florida didn’t have a specific law to bar recognition of same sex marriage, it would be forced to recognize a Massachusetts marriage. But since it has a law barring same sex marriage and that law has been held up in Florida as a legitimate use of public policy then it CAN refuse to recongize a same sex marriage from Massachusetts
I believe it is probably unconstitutional since contracts (like marriages) that exist in one state must be considered valid in other states.
However, if most people are against gay marriage, it would be a rare court that would consider the act unconstitutional. In a decade or so, it will be moot, and maybe then, it will be declared unconstitutional. That is, if someone bothers.
That’s not true. A contract executed in one state still can be void in another if it violates public policy in that state.