Unfortunately Full Faith and Credit seems to be suspended when it comes to marriage. The federal DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) exempts a state from any full faith and credit obligation to any public act, record or judicial proceeding of any other state “respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State ... or a right or claim arising from such relationship.” 28 U.S.C. 1738(c). Don't ask me how a constitutional ex-law prof (Bill C) saw a way to sign that one squaring it with the Supremacy Clause of the US Const. It's survived court challenges and there's a huge law review industry devoted to this question. I can provide the five most-cited pieces if this is wanted.
--- On Wed, 11/5/08, Shane Mage <shmage at pipeline.com> wrote:
> From: Shane Mage <shmage at pipeline.com>
> Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Is prop 8 constitutional?
> To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
> Date: Wednesday, November 5, 2008, 5:25 PM
> On Nov 5, 2008, at 4:24 PM, Dennis Claxton wrote:
> > At 01:05 PM 11/5/2008, Chuck Grimes wrote:
> >> And then there is a good chance that a lawsuit can
> be put together to
> >> over turn the initative. I know several women
> lawyers who are lesbian
> >> with partners and kids and I am pretty sure they
> are working on how to
> >> do that, this very morning.
> > Done and done:
> >
> http://thecalifornian.com/article/20081105/NEWS03/81105019/1002/NEWS01
> > Three civil liberties groups announced this morning
> that they have filed a lawsuit asking the California Supreme
> Court to strike down state Proposition 8 if it passes
> > The proposition on Tuesday's ballot would
> eliminate a right to same-sex marriage in California...The
> American Civil Liberties Union, the National Center for
> Lesbian Rights and Lambda Legal filed the lawsuit at the
> court's headquarters in San Francisco.
> > They said the petition contends that the proposition
> is invalid because the initiative process was improperly
> used in an attempt to undo the state constitution's core
> commitment to equality.
>
> Proposition 8 is clearly unconstitutional, but these legal
> groups are making a big mistake by basing their suit on the
> nebulous notion of a "core commitment to equality"
> that would trump the voters' decision as to the meaning
> of their state constitution. Proposition 8 is clearly
> unconstitutional because by specifying that only man/woman
> marriages will be "valid" in California it would
> make invalid in California "gay" marriages
> performed in Massachusetts or Connecticut. This blatantly
> violates Article IV Section 1 of the US Constitution, which
> states: "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each
> state to the public Acts, Records, and Judicial Proceedings
> of every other State." Instead of resorting to a
> more-than- dubious constitutional theory, they have to bring
> the first case on behalf of a California couple married
> outside California, even if they have to wait a day or two
> for the chosen couple to fly to Massachusetts and back. The
> California Supreme Court would have no choice, even if it
> wanted not to (it obviously doesn't), but to find
> Proposition 8 unconstitutional.
>
>
>
> Shane Mage
>
> > This cosmos did none of gods or men make, but it
> > always was and is and shall be: an everlasting fire,
> > kindling in measures and going out in measures."
> >
> > Herakleitos of Ephesos
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk