# SSM honored by states **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [February 13, 2014, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ssm-honored-by-states/681213 "2014-02-13T02:58:12Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![etv78](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/d78d45/32.png) [@etv78](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/etv78)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2014, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ssm-honored-by-states/681213/1 "2014-02-13T02:58:12Z")
Are there any states that refuse to host SS marriages, but DO honor ones performed in other states. ---
**Author:** ![USCDiver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/uscdiver/32/354_2.png) [@USCDiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/USCDiver)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2014, 3:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ssm-honored-by-states/681213/2 "2014-02-13T03:07:08Z")
Kentucky. As of today, actually > **[Judge: Ky. must recognize same-sex marriages](https://news.yahoo.com/judge-ky-must-recognize-same-sex-marriages-172747542.html)** > > LOUISVILLE, Ky. (AP) — Kentucky must recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states, according to a ruling Wednesday by a federal judge, who struck down part of the state ban that he wrote treated "gay and lesbian persons differently in a way... ---
**Author:** ![susan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/susan/32/17537_2.png) [@susan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/susan)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2014, 4:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ssm-honored-by-states/681213/3 "2014-02-13T04:41:16Z")
Here you go: [Same-sex marriage in the United States - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States) > [@](#): > > Same-sex marriage is legally recognized in some jurisdictions within the United States and by the federal government.[1] As of January 2014, seventeen states[2] (California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington), as well as the District of Columbia, have legalized same-sex marriage, although the Illinois law will not become effective until June 1, 2014.[n 1] Eight Native American tribal jurisdictions[n 2] issue marriage licenses for same-sex couples. **Oregon recognizes same-sex marriages performed in other states. Ohio recognizes out-of-state marriages for death certificate purposes only.[3] Missouri recognizes legal out-of-state same-sex marriages for joint tax returns purposes only.[4] Utah recognizes same-sex marriages performed while they were legal in the state for tax purposes only.**[5] (My bolding.) ---
**Author:** ![etv78](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/d78d45/32.png) [@etv78](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/etv78)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2014, 4:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ssm-honored-by-states/681213/4 "2014-02-13T04:56:12Z")
TY Susan. Forgot wiki. ---
**Author:** ![susan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/susan/32/17537_2.png) [@susan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/susan)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2014, 6:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ssm-honored-by-states/681213/5 "2014-02-13T06:21:52Z")
I knew that page existed, which made it easy to find. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2014, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ssm-honored-by-states/681213/6 "2014-02-13T16:56:15Z")
They’re all Constitutionally required to, under the Full Faith and Credit clause, but that seems to have been forgotten of late. ---
**Author:** ![Falchion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a88e57/32.png) [@Falchion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Falchion)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2014, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ssm-honored-by-states/681213/7 "2014-02-13T17:00:30Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > They’re all Constitutionally required to, under the Full Faith and Credit clause, but that seems to have been forgotten of late. That’s not now nor has it ever been true. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2014, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ssm-honored-by-states/681213/8 "2014-02-14T17:40:42Z")
Marriage recognition used to be the literal textbook example of Full Faith and Credit, until gay marriage became an issue. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Finn](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dewey_finn/32/4222_2.png) [@Dewey\_Finn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Finn)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2014, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ssm-honored-by-states/681213/9 "2014-02-14T17:50:53Z")
It seems to me that the Supreme Court needs to address the question of whether states are bound under the Full Faith and Credit clause to recognize SSM and one of these decisions (like Kentucky or Virginia) ought to be heard at the Supreme Court. (It would be slightly amusing if it was a case from Virginia that decided it, since Loving vs Virginia was the one that decided interracial marriage.) ---
**Author:** ![Falchion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a88e57/32.png) [@Falchion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Falchion)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2014, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ssm-honored-by-states/681213/10 "2014-02-14T18:12:42Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Marriage recognition used to be the literal textbook example of Full Faith and Credit, until gay marriage became an issue. Show me the textbook. FFC has _never_ been used to require a state to recognize a marriage created elsewhere. States recognize other states marriages as an operation of state law, not the FFC. Divorce, on the other hand, is the textbook example of Full Faith and Credit, but there difference is substantially more than semantic. ---
**Author:** ![Balance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ccd318/32.png) [@Balance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Balance)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2014, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ssm-honored-by-states/681213/11 "2014-02-14T19:16:29Z")
Yesterday, the SPLC (Southern Poverty Law Center) [announced](http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/news/splc-challenges-alabama-s-unconstitutional-marriage-protection-act-and-sanctity-of) a lawsuit challenging Alabama’s anti-gay-marriage law and amendment. Given the result of the Kentucky lawsuit, it would not surprise me if they succeed. It’ll take a while to play out, and I’m sure Alabama will fight it to the bitter end, but I’m hopeful. So, it doesn’t go on the list yet, but it may get there. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2014, 9:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ssm-honored-by-states/681213/12 "2014-02-15T09:51:30Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Marriage recognition used to be the literal textbook example of Full Faith and Credit, until gay marriage became an issue. Did you perhaps mean to say “until _interracial_ marriage became an issue”? Cos IIRC, FF&C wasn’t the deciding factor when the Lovings prevailed over the Commonwealth in the SCOTUS. ---
**Author:** ![Falchion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a88e57/32.png) [@Falchion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Falchion)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2014, 1:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ssm-honored-by-states/681213/13 "2014-02-18T13:59:57Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > Did you perhaps mean to say “until _interracial_ marriage became an issue”? > > Cos IIRC, FF&C wasn’t the deciding factor when the Lovings prevailed over the Commonwealth in the SCOTUS. You recall wrong. Full Faith and Credit is never mentiond in the Loving decision. The Lovings won on equal protection and due process grounds. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2014, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ssm-honored-by-states/681213/14 "2014-02-18T22:44:16Z")
When interracial marriage was an issue, its opponents talked a lot about the “public policy exception” to FF&C. That exception didn’t exist then, and still doesn’t now. ---
**Author:** ![Falchion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a88e57/32.png) [@Falchion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Falchion)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2014, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ssm-honored-by-states/681213/15 "2014-02-18T22:50:22Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > When interracial marriage was an issue, its opponents talked a lot about the “public policy exception” to FF&C. That exception didn’t exist then, and still doesn’t now. Well, the public policy exception (as far as I know) comes from a 1939 decision on workers compensation (citing to decisions as early as 1918). So, there’s been a public policy exception for some time. But that doesn’t matter, becuase, your _ipse dixit_ aside, FF&C has never been applied to marriages. And it doesn’t take a whole lot of analysis to realize why not: it quite clearly does not apply and even if it did apply, the Constitution gives Congress the right to specify when it applies, and they did that. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2014, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ssm-honored-by-states/681213/16 "2014-02-18T22:55:07Z")
> [@Falchion](#): > > FF&C … quite clearly does not apply It’s not clear to all of us. Little help? > [@](#): > > and even if it did apply, the Constitution gives Congress the right to specify when it applies, and they did that. Same? ---
**Author:** ![Falchion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a88e57/32.png) [@Falchion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Falchion)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2014, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ssm-honored-by-states/681213/17 "2014-02-18T23:13:51Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > It’s not clear to all of us. Little help? > > Same? No problem. The Full Faith and Credit clause (and it’s really not a “clause”) states: > [@](#): > > 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 So, you begin at the beginning. Is “marriage” a “public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings"? Well, it’s not a public act (i.e. a law) and it’s not a judicial proceedings. So is it a public “record”? That’s not clear. There is some authority for the view that that means “court records.” (For example, 28 U.S.C. 1738, which is the general enacting statute, refers to “records and judicial proceedings of any court” and then “such records”). Is marriage a record of a court? Maybe. Your marriage certificate is often filed with the clerk of court, but not always. At best, what is a court record is a record of the solemnization of your marriage. Your marriage is a legal status that arises out of that. Whether that’s a distinction with a difference doesn’t matter. Because the next question is: what is the effect of this record? Again, under the statute, the provision requires that the record has the effect “as they have by law or usage in the courts” of the receiving state (you can see that we’re primarily concerned with proving things in court, here.). There is a significant disagreement over whether the FFC operates simply as an evidentiary rule or has some substantive effect. (Put it like this: does your certified copy of an out-of-state criminal conviction prove the fact of the out-of-state conviction as an evidentiary mater or does it prove that you’re a convicted felon, period?). I also hasten to note that the Supreme Court has consistently required that “judgments” be given much greater force than “acts” or “records.” Now the question is: what is the effect of the duly admitted “marriage”? You treat it as if it was produced by the court you’re in. What is the effect of a marriage certificate duly authorized and recorded of an illegal marriage? Nothing. (This comes up in other contexts, typically bigamy or consanguinity). So, the court in the “no-ssm” state treats your “ssm-state” marriage certificate as if it had been produced in that state: that is, not worth the paper its written on. Why? Because of the very reason that there is a public policy exception: “Full faith and credit does not here enable one state to legislate for the other or to project its laws across state lines so as to preclude the other from prescribing for itself the legal consequences of acts within it.” \* Pacific Employers Ins. Co. v. Indus. Accident Comm’n.\*, 206 U.S. 493 (1939). And even if I was wrong about all of that. We’re back to the fact that Congress gets to determine “the Effect thereof.” And, recognizing that the specific trumps the general, the unchallenged section of DOMA protects states from that possibility. That’s a rough overview, at least. And, as I keep saying, no court has ever used the FF&C to force a state to recognize an out of state marriage (but they do require you to recognize an out-of-state divorce, because judgments are different and all states recognize divorce). ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2014, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ssm-honored-by-states/681213/18 "2014-02-18T23:23:49Z")
[You’re slightly behind the news.](http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-kentucky-same-sex-marriage-20140212,0,6005147.story#axzz2tRqebGf2) > [@](#): > > District Judge John G. Heyburn ordered that Kentucky recognize same-sex marriages that had been legally performed in other states and opened the door wide for activists to strike down Kentucky’s ban entirely. ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Feldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lord_feldon/32/341_2.png) [@Lord\_Feldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Feldon)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2014, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ssm-honored-by-states/681213/19 "2014-02-18T23:54:01Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > [You’re slightly behind the news.](http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-kentucky-same-sex-marriage-20140212,0,6005147.story#axzz2tRqebGf2) [That case](http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/page/politics/kentucky-same-sex-marriage-decision/806/) was decided on equal protection, not full faith and credit: > [@](#): > > In the end, the Court concludes that Kentucky’s denial of recognition for valid same-sex marriages violates the United States Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection under the law, even under the most deferential standard of review. The ruling isn’t that Kentucky has to recognize all out of state marriages, but that it can’t discriminate against same-sex couples when it chooses which ones to recognize. ---
**Author:** ![Falchion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a88e57/32.png) [@Falchion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Falchion)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2014, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ssm-honored-by-states/681213/20 "2014-02-19T00:58:20Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > [You’re slightly behind the news.](http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-kentucky-same-sex-marriage-20140212,0,6005147.story#axzz2tRqebGf2) Unless I’m missing something, although the plaintiffs raised FF&C, the decision is entirely about equal protection. Am I wrong? I may well be behind the news. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ssm-honored-by-states/681213.md?page=2)