Quote:
You're sort of right, but usually the FFC Clause of the Constitution requires states to recognize things like marriages, adoptions, divorces, conracts, etc. of the state from which they originated. The Defense of Marriage Act specifically allows states to supercede the FFC Clause. Furthermore, states have passed their own DOMAs to fit in to the Federal Statute.
The Public Policy exception to FFC applies even in the context of marriage. It's the reason other states were never required to recognize polygamy and why some states were allowed to prosecute miscegenation even if the interracial couple had been married in a state allowing such unions. This is why I was pointing out that relying on FFC might not accomplish Jophiel's vision of the future.
As for DOMA, I do not recall the Supreme Court ever acting on any of the legal challenges to the statute. But even if DOMA is ultimately found to be constitutionally infirm, FFC will not necessarily require the Bible Belt to recognize same-sex unions formed in other states.
Quote:
You might well be correct. Hell, you're a law-speakin'-type-guy so you'd know better than me. Regardless, as the country grows increasingly speckled with different levels of gay union, I forsee some major legal dispute arising when someone's divorce/custody/inheritance/etc comes into conflict with another state's prohibitions on gay unions.
The fact that divergent mores result in a patchwork of policies that vary from state to state will not necessarily lead to eventual unanimity. I do not foresee a
Roe v. Wade type of decision that will subjugate the states' laws to a uniform federal standard rooted in the Constitution ... at least not anytime soon. Absent amending the Constitution, it is difficult to envision a legislative solution since marriage remains within the province of the states' authority.
The good news in all this is that my brethren of the Bar who practice family law can look forward to "land office business" over the next several years as same-sex couples struggle to decipher exactly what rights they can take with them to another state. Anything that pads lawyers' pockets is a good thing.
Edited, Mar 22nd 2007 3:05pm by Thoronmir