There seems to be some confusion about what the full faith and credit clause is and how it applies to DOMA.
Well, full faith and credit is the principle by which states automatically recognize the legal transactions of other states. Marriage licenses are traditionally one of the things included. However DOMA gives states an exception and allows them the option of not recognizing same-sex marriages performed in other states. Thus, if a heterosexual couple gets married in New York and moves to Texas, they don't have to get married again to be legally recognized as married. But if a same-sex couple marries in New York and moves to Texas, well, they're not married anymore, or at least not while they are in Texas.
This provision of DOMA is what keeps same-sex marriage from spreading all over the country by people who get married in states in which it is legal, then go back home. This part of DOMA was also NOT argued when the Supreme Court heard arguments on DOMA back in March. Since it wasn't argued, I doubt they would rule on it.
It also should be noted that even if the Supremes strike down all of DOMA, same-sex marriage won't instantly be available in all 50 states. You can bet that states that don't allow same-sex marriage would quickly act to restore the full faith and credit exception. Only if the court expressly strikes this provision down and says it is unconstitutional would marriage rights be extended this way.
It could happen, but I kinda doubt it.
Here's a link to a legal description of the full faith and credit clause.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Ful … dit+Clause
BTW, I know this clause sounds heinous now, but it may well have saved us much bigger trouble. Remember that at the time DOMA passed during the Clinton administration, there was very serious talk about passage of a constitutional amendment barring same-sex marriage. Clinton used this provision of DOMA to convince some reluctant congressmen that an amendment was unnecessary. If an amendment had passed, same-sex marriage would almost certainly not be legal anywhere in the country today.
The gay rulings should come this week but not necessarily Monday. Last week they also released rulings on Thursday.
I highly recommend the piece by Tobias Wolf that Fur ball posted. It provides some clarity on a confusing topic and explains why ending DOMA is not going to force hardcore states to accept same-sex marriages. It does however lay out a strong case why DOMA should be repealed or found unconstitutional.
On the one hand, as BearinFW points out, if I'm driving across the country and I get pulled over for speeding in Colorado, my Maine driver's license should be just as valid and legal there as it is in Maine. We are *supposed* to be the *united* states.
On the other hand, as Top4 points out, the full faith and credit legal concept has historically been used (rather, *abused*) to discriminate against people and their rights, depending upon which state they're living in. That of course, is unconstitutional and has been ruled thus.
This is a case where the 10th Amendment (state's rights) can conflict with the rest of the constitution. It'll be interesting to see what happens tomorrow.
However, full faith and credit itself isn't unconstitutional. It's IN the freaking Constitution. I suspect that what you're trying to say is right, but you're just not saying it in a way that is clear to me. This is from the link I posted earlier.
The Full Faith and Credit Clause—Article IV, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution—provides that the various states must recognize legislative acts, public records, and judicial decisions of the other states within the United States. It states that "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State." The statute that implements the clause, 28 U.S.C.A. § 1738, further specifies that "a state's preclusion rules should control matters originally litigated in that state." The Full Faith and Credit Clause ensures that judicial decisions rendered by the courts in one state are recognized and honored in every other state. It also prevents parties from moving to another state to escape enforcement of a judgment or to relitigate a controversy already decided elsewhere, a practice known as forum shopping.
But Section 2 will be left in place: "Section 2, 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."
I wish that they would strike down Section 2, too. Like I said before, with this court's makeup--no way (I hope I'm proved wrong).
Clearly stated is a this quote from Jane Schacter, a Stanford University professor of constitutional law, who said even repealing DOMA would not solve the question of state recognition.
“Even if DOMA were repealed tomorrow, states traditionally have relied on their own principles and public policies to decide to recognize another state’s marriage,” Schacter said. “It’s not as if DOMA for the first time empowered them to do that.”
For decades, states differed on marriage rules, such as whether to allow first cousins to marry. Schacter said the Supreme Court has never applied the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution to compel states to recognize out-of-state marriages that are illegal in their own state.
Differences in state laws on same-sex marriage are “going to complicate things, no question about that,” Schacter said. “Just getting rid of DOMA doesn’t get rid of that complication.” Full article here: http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/2013/06/supreme-c … d-matters/
If you can stand to read more, an in-depth analysis written by Tobias Barrington Wolff goes into how complicated the issue is and how in many states the full faith and credit clause is not a factor --like Schacter's point-- in how recognizes marriages from other states. Though the blog was written in 2011, the key issues are still the same: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tobias-barrington-w … 05484.html
I do think the full faith and credit section of DOMA *could* be ruled unconstitutional based on traditional and constitutional precedent. I just don't think the court will do it.
Actually, we may be talking about the same thing, but just in different language.
On a different note, I'm not sure if you saw Senator Murkowski's (R-AK) comments that she posted on her website this week. She's going to take some grief for it back in AK, but I'm real glad she did it: http://www.murkowski.senate.gov/public/index.cfm? … 4b3aef41dc