In my class yesterday, my professor says that she can not understand why, if Vermont or California issue gay marriage certificates valid in that state, that a state like Alabama can not accept those certificates, because Alabama is being "unconstitutional" by not following the Constitutions full faith and credit clause.
What is the best argument against this reasoning? At the time, I had nearly 10 streams of consciousness going on in my head, but I just can't pull together the best argument against this. Any help?
PS My logic was:
-The Federal government has a ban on gay marriage, so it is not a Constitutional right (bear with me here, I'm not arguing with a Libertarian here).
-One states interpretation of an issue does not automatically trump another state's right to validate that interpretation, since both states are soverign.
-The full faith and credit clause applies to the rulings of outside courts that follow the same similar law that exists in the home state (so, because a prostitute has a valid state certificate in Nevada, he or she can't set up shop in Florida).
-The full faith and credit act is never actually "full" because lawyers, doctors, etc. have to take re-licensing exams even though they have a valid state-issued license in another state.
Anything else? I really want to get into the nuts and bolts of the the full faith and credit clause. Thanks!
“We ought to obey God rather than men.” -Acts 5:29.
"Slaves before God, free before all others." -Boer Motto.
Findlaw has a pretty good annotated copy of the Constitution, including discussion of the full faith and credit clause.
As for your first argument, where does the federal government have a ban on gay marriage? It may not recognise gay marriage, but that's not the same thing as banning it.
Actually reading the Constitution doesn't actually get through to law professors... but thanks for the link, I'll brush up.
I know that there is not a federal ban, but there is the definition of marraige act, or whatever they called it.
I just need to get into the meat of the practical and theoretical applications of the full faith and credit clause.
SouthernHero:In my class yesterday, my professor says that she can not understand why, if Vermont or California issue gay marriage certificates valid in that state, that a state like Alabama can not accept those certificates, because Alabama is being "unconstitutional" by not following the Constitutions full faith and credit clause.
Obviously, your professor has not read the entire full faith and credit clause:
"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."
The second sentence gives Congress the power, by passwing laws, to determine what constitutes proof of "public acts, records, and judicial proceedings." Congress did just that in 1996. Section 2 of Public Law No. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419 (Defense of Marriage Act) reads, "No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship."
Congress was given the power to determine the needed proof, and regarding same sex marriages, Congress determined no proof was good enough.
faber est suae quisque fortunae