In Maryland, the minimum age for marriage is 16 if the girl is pregnant. If a married MD couple with a 16 year old girl and an 18 year old boy went to another state to set up a household, where the minimum age to have sex and get married is 18, can the husband be prosecuted for having sex with a minor (his wife)?
IANAL, but I believe the way the statutory rape laws are worded is they provide exceptions in the event that the actors are married. The fact that the state wouldn’t permit them to be married is meaningless, for because of full faith and credit, the other states essentially have to recognize the marriage.
So, you can’t get arrested for having sex with your wife, even if you couldn’t legally marry your wife in the state you’re currently residing in. The fact that a state did recognize your marriage is good enough.
This is why, I believe, full faith and credit is making the anti-gay marriage crowd nervous.
I thought the The Defense of Marriage Act passed in 96 was specifically crafted to exempt the states from inter-state FF&C requirements and any duty to recognize the legitimacy of a gay marriage.
After Vermont began recognizing gay marriage, a bunch of states passed laws effectively getting rid of full faith and credit.
Does this vacating of the reciprocal interstate FF&C understandings potentially impact the young married couple outlined in the OP?
didn’t the defense of marriage act specify same-sex unions were allowed to be not recognized? If he’s 18 and she’s 16, ff&c should still apply.
I can’t beleive I’m gonna say this, can we get a lawyer here?
As far as I know, she doesn’t have a ‘right to fornicate’ in any state.
I checked several references, and they confirmed my understanding that “fornication” means sex between two people who are not married to each other. It’s sure common in todays world, and the laws against it are generally unenforced, except with minors, but a ‘right’? Hardly.
Note that[list=1]
[li]The bill specifically allows states to deny recognition of same-sex marriages, not to disallow “full faith and credit” in any circumstances[/li][li]No state currently recognizes marriages between people of the same sex (a Vermont “civil union” is not legally recognized as a marriage), although it is entirely possible that Massachusetts must with six months[/li][li]“Full faith and credit” appears to be a Constitutional requirement, so any case turning on it will inevitably wind up before SCOTUS[/li][li]No matter what decision SCOTUS hands down in such a case, it will be as politically decisive as Dred Scott (which was basically a “full faith and credit” case, too).[/li][/list=1]
No, they passed laws permitting themselves to refuse to apply the principle of comity as regards gay marriages or civil unions contracted in another state where it had been legalized.
They can no more “effectively get rid of full faith and credit” than they can repeal freedom of speech – it’s a Constitutional guarantee.
Of course, at the moment Court decisions have rendered it a Constitutional guarantee written on Swiss cheese, but it’s still in there.
The U.S. Supreme Court has already exempted marriage from the Full Faith and Credit clause: “[The Full Faith and Credit clause does not] compel a state to substitute the statutes of other states for its own statutes dealing with a subject matter concerning which it is competent to legislate,” under Pacific Employers v. Industrial Accident Comm., 306 U.S. 493, 501 (1939).
More recently, the Supreme Court has held 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. Nevada v. Hall, 440 U.S. 410 (1979).
When the Supreme Court has guaranteed marriage rights, such as when it struck down state laws against interracial marriages in Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), it was based on the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment, not the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution.
Which may or may not apply to same-sex marriage, since every state supreme court that’s heard a same-sex marriage case since Hall was handed down has found that there is no legitimate state interest in denying the benefits of marriage to same-sex couples.
Actually, my recollection from law school is that the Full Faith & Credit aspect of the Constitution is not self-actuating. In other words, Congress gets to decide how much or how little FF&C is appropriate.
(Note that the same is not true of freedom of speech.)