Full Faith and Credit: Article IV how does it work.

Great Debates
1

I started thinking about this question after reading a post by Homebrew over in the “Ask the White Supremacist” thread. This is the shorthand version. Homebrew’s post is in the upper third of page two if you don’t want to wallow through that thread and goes into much more detail.

The upshot is that a guy died in Kansas. His wife was a transgendered guy*. He died without a will. Normally in Kansas, the wife inherits in that case. The guy’s kid, however, sued and won on the basis that regardless of what the wife looked like, the wife was a guy and two guys can’t marry in Kansas. The US Supreme Court refused to hear the case, so the KC Supreme Court’s decision stands.

Homebrew said

Ok. Here’s where my question is: how far does article IV go? If I have a concealed carry permit in state A, does Article IV require state B to accept it and let me carry a gun?

If my state gave 12 year olds the right to drive, would other states have to accept it?

And (I’m sorry, this is example is gonna offend. I’ve tried a dozen different ways and ALL of 'em come out offensive. For what it’s worth, I think the KC decision was wrong and I’d have let her inherit) if a state allowed men and sheep to marry, (no, I’m not comparing transgendered people to sheep) would other states have to accept it?

How far does Article IV go? There have to be SOME limitations. "public Acts, Records, and Judicial Proceedings " is a huge area. What are they? From the quoted text, it sounds like whoever passes the first law wins. Let’s pretend that the Federal Gov hadn’t passed the so-called “Defense of Marriage” act. If State A had passed it and it was upheld by the courts, would that prevent State B from permitting same-sex marriages?

Fenris

*I know this isn’t the correct phrasing, but I can’t think of a better shorthand way to say it.

2

Nice question, Fenris.

As I understand it, and one of the GD jurisconsults will be along to give a better explanation, the Full Faith and Credit Clause requires that each state give full credence to the acts and decisions of another state as “good law” as they pertain to the persons and goods over which that state has jurisdiction.

To take your “concealed carry” example, it is perfectly legal for any state to make the possession or use of an object illegal within its boundaries, and one’s privilege to possess or use that object under the laws of another state does not apply – because that governs your right to do so within that other state.

However, if you are, for example, declared mentally incompetent in Colorado, later move to Texas (presumably with a family-member guardian) and commit an act which done with criminal intent would constitute a crime, Texas cannot try you as a competent adult, at least without a separate hearing on your competency to reverse Colorado’s findings and declare you competent to stand trial.

The logic, of course, is that while you may hold privileges under the laws of a state governing your behavior in that state, those rights do not extend to your presence in a separate state with distinct laws. On the other hand, some characteristic pertinent to you as an individual is considered to “carry over” and the findings of a state regarding that characteristic are by comity recognized by the other state’s courts.

Barb and I married in New York. North Carolina had no doubt that our marriage was quite valid when we moved here. As a married North Carolina resident, each of us gained certain legal rights over the property of the other that we had not had in New York, because as North Carolina citizens we have a “marital interest” in each other’s property which New York does not ipso facto extend to the parties to a marriage. For example, if I were to buy life insurance on myself making Chris, our ward and son-in-spirit, the beneficiary, Barb would be required to sign before a notary waiving her interest as spouse in that policy.

With regard to the Gardiners, it sounds like Kansas made a judicial finding that if you’re born male, you remain male for life, regardless of any internal feelings, any surgery, etc. Ergo, the amended Wisconsin birth certificate, while valid in Wisconsin, did not cover J’Noel’s status under the laws of Kansas. Her attorney claims that this violates FF&C.

As a parallel, IIRC there is a Lesbian couple validly married under the laws of Texas, because one member is a post-surgical transsexual identifying as a Lesbian woman, and hence under Texas’s laws still legally male; perhaps one of our learned gay members can give more background on this.

3

This site contains background andSupreme Court decisions involving “Full Faith and Credit.”

This one has specific information on Supreme Court decisions concerning same sex marriage.

You didn’t make clear whether two states were involved in the case. If all of the activity took place in Kansas then "full faith and credit’"wouldn’t by a factor, would it? My question is probably answered in the “White supremicist” thread but I’ve been there a few times and don’t want to go again.

4

Excellent post, but this is a teeny bit off. Texas would have to give full faith and credit to the Colorado courts determination of your guardian’s guardianship rights and duties under Colorado law (unless something particularly so egregious as to amount to a Due Process violation occurred in Colorado). But a competency hearing in a criminal trial is different and separate from competency as concerns a guardianship proceeding.

A competency hearing in a criminal trial goes only to your competency to stand trial at the time of trial, and is a very low standard. In Texas you have to lack either (1) sufficient present ability to consult with your lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding, or (2) a rational and factual understanding of the proceedings against you. You can be fairly mentally retarded and still be competent to stand trial.

5

as pointed out by polycarp, the most common application of the Full Faith and Credit Clause is when you get married in one state, all states typically recognize the marriage as valid. thus, if katie holmes and i ran off to las vegas and got married, when we moved back to texas, we wouldn’t have to get remarried here. texas would recognize the marriage as valid even though it took place under nevada law.

so what if nevada allowed same sex marriages, and tom cruise and i ran off and got married there? when we moved back, wouldn’t texas have to recognize the marriage as valid?

probably not. in the case of Nevada vs. Hall, 440 U.S. 10 (1979), the U.S. Supreme Court stated that “the Full Faith and Credit Clause does not require a state to apply another state’s law in violation of its own legitimate public policy.”

it’s pretty likely that texas would argue that their laws only permit marriage between a man and a woman, and it’s against their legitimate public policy (protection of public values/public welfare/the family) to allow a same sex marriage.

6

FTR, Fenris, J’Noel Gardiner is a transsexual woman, and not a “guy” of any sort. Calling her a “guy” is an insult.

7

It might have been perceived as insulting, but I seriously doubt that it was *intended[/] as an insult, KellyM.

8

To be perfectly honest, while I wish I had been that eloquent*, I was quoting from a press release. I thought I had clearly attributed, but I guess I didn’t.

Although I don’t know all of the facts, I wonder if the Gardiners filed joint federal and, if applicable, state taxes. It would seem that if the IRS accepted their marital status to file jointly, wouldn’t the federal acceptance of their marriage supercede Kansas’ decision?

I guess since the Supremes declined to address this issue, we’ll have to wait until someone else fights this battle.
[sub]*In fact, I had to look up “eloquent” to make sure I spelled it correctly.[/sub]