Why does Full Faith and Credit not seem to apply to gay marriages? Something like 25 states specifically do not recognize same-sex unions, by statute, even if they were legally performed in another state... that seems unconstitutional on the face of it. What am I missing?

The fact that it is a highly contentious issue? :-)

But seriously, there have been precedents in the past. Anti-miscegenation laws, etc.

To me, the best thing to do is to separate out civil and religious marriage. Essentially, go through all the legal rules and replace "marriage" with "civil union", and make that open to anyone over the legal age who is willing to fill out the appropriate paperwork. Let churches make what ever rules that they want to perform marriage ceremonies. What I find fascinating is that many married people seem to find it appalling to consider this route, as if it somehow diminishes their marriage to admit that there is a legal side to it. But there also those people willing to give gays all the "rights and responsibilities" of marriage, as long as they don't use that word. That's the view that really confuses me.

Was the interracial marriage issue similar? How was FFaC applied back then? Was it upheld or struck down in certain cases or what exactly?

I agree with everything else you said. Many first world nations have civil unions for governmental purposes, and "marriage" is reserved as a religious designation. I think that's the best way to go to accommodate everyone and not discriminate against any of our citizens on religious grounds.

Hello Lady:

I don't know what the full faith and credit part has to do with it, but there IS a big gap that needs to be filled in.

Right now, if you're married in Tennessee, the state of Ohio recognizes it. Right now, if you're gay and you're married in Ma, the state of Ohio MUST recognize it.

That causes a lot of red necks in Ohio to get heartburn... It's not settled yet. But, get ready for a gay old time.

excon

Sorry, there is no constitutional rights, living a perverted life style is not protected under the constitutional

You are forgetting the number one right, the rights the states keep, the states have the rights not given to the Federal Government,

Marriage is not a federal law, but merely state law. My guess is that over time things will go against the gay marriage more and more, as more states pass specific laws against it.

Sad it has to be that way, since marriage was and always has been a man and a women.

I don't know what the full faith and credit part has to do with it

It is my understanding that FFaC requires states to recognize judgments and legal standings from other states. For one state to purposefully enact laws to NOT recognize a specific standing in a another state that seems to violate the clause. I was just curious as to how the legal argument for doing so goes... "we only recognize what we want to recognize" or what exactly?

Fr_Chuck. I was not asking about the Constitutionality of gay marriage in and of itself (marriage is not a Federal issue at all as you stated), but how states get around the Full Faith and Credit clause with regards to some issues, but not others.

For example Tennessee does not recognize common law marriage unless it was legally recognized in another state first, specifically due to Full Faith and Credit considerations. So even though it is against their statutes, and against their states public policy, they recognize legal standings from other states in this regard.