Now that folks have had some time for reflection, it seems this full faith and credit thing isn't the bugaboo that was originally thought and the one-state-dictating obstacle isn't so.
Where do you get that idea from? The legal commentators I read are split on the issue, but with the majority, as I read them, feeling that FF&C will in fact prevail. And from what I know of some of them, I suspect that they're sandbagging it; that they are saying don't worry, FF&C won't apply, but when in a year or two they'll get a client and make a full scale argument for FF&C applying.
If the USSC would give an advisory opinion on this, it would be easier. But they don't.
And there's another issue, too. Of the couples married in LA, are they legally married for federal law purposes? Do they get to file marital tax returns? Do they get spousal Social Security benefits? The federal government at this point lets states define marriage; but if these marriages go through, you have a conflict between that and the Defense of Marriage Act and the 14th Amendment. And again, barring a Constitutional amendment, it won't be sorted out by the USSC for at least five and maybe ten years. And in the interim, we're going to have a real mess. |
