Okay law types, why can't MA file fed suit under Full Faith and Credit

[Not Me]

articles of the Constitution to require that all marriages performed there be recognized by the Federal government as well as the other states?

Because of the FF&C clause, one state (for example) recognizes licensed drivers from another state. Further a state which requires persons to be 18 years of age to be married will recognize a marriage performed in another state with younger participants.

Now, I don't expect Romney to press this, but would this be a viable exercise?
Or further, if it is unsuccessful, could a state like MA refuse to recognize any marriage from another state?

Curious...

[SlipperySlope]

1. That is the "Slippery Slope"

That logic is one *exact* reason that the "traditional marriage" supporters want a Constitutional Amendment.

Their fear is that one state recognizes gay marriage, and then one federal court rules that all states need to honor it, and then *boom* you've got nationwide recognition of gay marriage.

In general, however, the answer to your question is "no". There is a general "public policy exception" that says that States won't be forced to honor other states rulings if the conflict with their public policy. Of course, all it would take is one ruling to overturn this long-standing exception.

[Not Me]

3. Okay, so the "public policy exemption" may allow states

not to recognize *some* marriages from MA (and hopefully soon NY, WA, etc) Suppose the equal marriage states retaliate and refuse to recognize marriages from states who don't recognize ALL their marriage contracts.

Ugly, yes. Perhaps ugly enough to change things.

If I am totally off base here, tell me.

[SlipperySlope]

4. It isn't a "tit-for-tat" exception.

Example:

Say Utah legalized marrying your own daughter.

If Massachusetts has a "public policy" against incest, then the FF&C clause couldn't be forced them to recognize Utah Father/Daughter marriages.

That doesn't mean that Utah could then have a blanket exception to recognizing Massachusetts marriages. There is nothing about a traditional Massachusetts marriage that is in conflict with traditional Utah marriages.

Put simply: The FF&C clause isn't a way for states to start forcing each other to change their policies. It is a simple way of saying that as long as their policies do agree, they will accept each others licenses and civil rulings.

Maybe this is good reading:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_Faith_and_Credit_Clause

[William769]

2. They can file against the other States, but not the FEDS.

[ruggerson]

5. It wouldn't be the state

it would be an individual couple who got married in Mass, went back their home state and then sued their home state for not recognizing their marriage.

Mass. had an arcane little law, however, which denied marriage licenses to out of state couples whose home state had a law which would not permit them to marry.

I suppose if there are couples who legally married in Mass., resided there when they were married, and then moved to another state, they could sue the state they moved to.

But, those couples would be the only people in the nation, currently, with standing to sue under full faith and credit.

Speaking for myself, I hope no one does this, as it is exactly what the religious rightwingers want someone to do, so they can justify their federal amendment to the constitution.

I'd rather work on the individual state level, and then in a few years when we have even more public opinion on our side, push to overturn DOMA, which would immediately result in anyone legally married in a "legal" state to be fully recognized on the federal level as well. In other words, the whole ball of wax.

[bluestateguy]

6. That logic might work if we were talking about Mass and Vermont

A married couple of Massachusetts might be recognized as a legal civil union in Vermont, where such arrangements are legal for all residents.

But if state A confers the benefit of marriage on their residents, but state B does not, then a gay married couple from state A will have a hard time getting a benefit in state B that even residents of state B do not get.