18.3 Application to Modern Issues (e.g., Same-Sex Marriage)
6 min read•july 30, 2024
The has been a key player in the same-sex marriage debate. Before 2015, states clashed over recognizing marriages from other states, with some allowing and others banning same-sex unions.
The Supreme Court's ruling in 2015 changed everything. It required all states to license and recognize same-sex marriages, resolving conflicts with the Full Faith and Credit Clause and rendering parts of DOMA unenforceable.
Full Faith and Credit Clause: Same-Sex Marriage
Constitutional Basis and State Divisions
Top images from around the web for Constitutional Basis and State Divisions
Same-sex marriage in the United States - Wikipedia View original
Is this image relevant?
The Mad Professah Lectures: MAP: State(s) of Same-sex Marriage, circa 2012 View original
Is this image relevant?
Same-sex marriage in the United States - Wikipedia View original
Is this image relevant?
The Mad Professah Lectures: MAP: State(s) of Same-sex Marriage, circa 2012 View original
Is this image relevant?
1 of 2
Top images from around the web for Constitutional Basis and State Divisions
Same-sex marriage in the United States - Wikipedia View original
Is this image relevant?
The Mad Professah Lectures: MAP: State(s) of Same-sex Marriage, circa 2012 View original
Is this image relevant?
Same-sex marriage in the United States - Wikipedia View original
Is this image relevant?
The Mad Professah Lectures: MAP: State(s) of Same-sex Marriage, circa 2012 View original
Is this image relevant?
1 of 2
- The Full Faith and Credit Clause, found in Article IV, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, requires states to recognize and respect the "public acts, records, and judicial proceedings" of other states
- Prior to the Supreme Court's decision in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), states were divided on the issue of same-sex marriage recognition
- Some states allowed same-sex marriage (Massachusetts, California)
- Other states banned it through state constitutional amendments or statutes (Texas, Ohio)
Conflict with the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)
- The (DOMA) of 1996 allowed states to refuse recognition of same-sex marriages performed in other states, creating a conflict with the Full Faith and Credit Clause
- In (2013), the Supreme Court struck down Section 3 of DOMA, which defined marriage as between one man and one woman for federal purposes, as a violation of the of the Fifth Amendment
- The Windsor decision set the stage for challenges to state bans on same-sex marriage recognition under the Full Faith and Credit Clause
- It signaled a shift in the Court's approach to same-sex marriage and LGBTQ+ rights more broadly
Obergefell v. Hodges: Impact on Full Faith and Credit
Supreme Court's Ruling and Rationale
- In Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), the Supreme Court held that the requires states to license same-sex marriages and to recognize same-sex marriages lawfully licensed and performed in other states
- The Court's decision was based on two key provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment
- The protected by the Due Process Clause
- The guarantee of equal protection under the law provided by the
Resolution of Conflict and Implications for DOMA
- The Obergefell decision effectively resolved the conflict between state bans on same-sex marriage and the Full Faith and Credit Clause by requiring all states to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states
- The decision also rendered the remaining provisions of DOMA unenforceable, as they were based on the now-unconstitutional definition of marriage as between one man and one woman
- This included Section 2, which allowed states to refuse recognition of same-sex marriages performed in other states
Reactions and Criticisms
- The Obergefell decision has been praised as a landmark victory for LGBTQ+ rights and equality
- It extended the fundamental right to marry to same-sex couples and ensured that their marriages would be recognized nationwide
- However, the decision has also faced criticism from those who argue that it infringes upon states' rights and religious liberty
- Some argue that the decision overrides the democratic process and the ability of states to define marriage for themselves
- Others argue that it threatens the religious freedom of individuals and institutions that oppose same-sex marriage on moral or religious grounds
Full Faith and Credit Clause: Contemporary Issues
Adoption Decrees
- States have varying requirements for adoption, such as age restrictions and home study requirements
- The Full Faith and Credit Clause generally requires states to recognize adoptions finalized in other states, even if the adoption would not have been granted under the recognizing state's laws
- For example, if a same-sex couple adopts a child in a state that allows such adoptions, other states must recognize the adoption even if they do not allow same-sex couples to adopt under their own laws
Driver's Licenses
- States have different requirements for obtaining a driver's license, such as age restrictions and training requirements
- The Full Faith and Credit Clause requires states to recognize driver's licenses issued by other states, subject to certain exceptions for public safety
- For example, if an individual has a valid driver's license from one state, other states must generally allow that individual to drive within their borders
- However, states may impose certain restrictions or requirements, such as requiring individuals to obtain a new license after establishing residency in the state
Professional Licenses
- States have varying requirements for professional licenses, such as education and experience requirements
- The Full Faith and Credit Clause generally requires states to recognize professional licenses issued by other states, subject to certain exceptions for public health and safety
- For example, if a nurse is licensed in one state, other states must generally allow that nurse to practice within their borders
- However, states may impose certain additional requirements, such as passing a state-specific exam or meeting continuing education requirements
Tensions and Balancing of Interests
- These issues can create tensions between and , as well as raise questions about the appropriate balance between individual rights and state interests
- States may argue that they have the right to set their own requirements and standards for adoptions, driver's licenses, and professional licenses
- Individuals may argue that they have a right to have their legal status and benefits recognized across state lines, without facing undue burdens or discrimination
Balancing State Sovereignty vs National Uniformity
Competing Interests and Values
- The application of the Full Faith and Credit Clause to contemporary issues raises ongoing debates and challenges in balancing competing interests and values
- State sovereignty: Some argue that the Full Faith and Credit Clause infringes upon states' rights to set their own policies and laws in areas traditionally reserved to the states, such as family law and professional regulation
- States may argue that they have a legitimate interest in setting their own standards and requirements based on local needs and values
- Individual rights: Others argue that the Full Faith and Credit Clause is necessary to protect individual rights and ensure that legal status and benefits granted in one state are not lost when individuals cross state lines
- Individuals may argue that they have a right to have their legal relationships and professional qualifications recognized and respected nationwide
- National uniformity: The Full Faith and Credit Clause promotes national uniformity and stability by ensuring that legal acts and judgments are recognized and enforced across state lines, reducing the potential for conflicting legal regimes and uncertainty
- National uniformity can promote economic efficiency, social stability, and the rule of law
Balancing Considerations and Future Developments
- Balancing these competing interests and values requires careful consideration of the specific legal and policy issues at stake, as well as the broader constitutional principles and values underlying the Full Faith and Credit Clause
- Courts and policymakers must weigh the relative importance of state sovereignty, individual rights, and national uniformity in each specific context
- They must also consider the potential consequences and implications of their decisions for future cases and developments
- The ongoing debates and challenges in this area are likely to continue as new legal and social issues emerge, requiring courts and policymakers to grapple with the appropriate balance between state sovereignty, individual rights, and national uniformity
- For example, the recognition of polyamorous relationships or the regulation of emerging technologies may raise new Full Faith and Credit Clause issues in the future
- As society and the law continue to evolve, the Full Faith and Credit Clause will remain a crucial tool for navigating the complex web of state and federal law in the United States
Key Terms to Review (16)
Civil Rights Movement: The Civil Rights Movement was a pivotal social and political movement in the United States during the 1950s and 1960s that aimed to end racial discrimination and ensure equal rights for African Americans. This movement challenged systemic racism and discrimination, leading to significant legislative changes and increased awareness about civil rights issues, connecting deeply with various constitutional principles and legal frameworks.
Defense of Marriage Act: The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was a federal law enacted in 1996 that defined marriage as the union between one man and one woman for federal purposes, thereby denying federal recognition to same-sex marriages. This legislation had significant implications for the legal status of same-sex couples, especially in terms of benefits and rights previously available only to heterosexual couples.
Due process clause: The due process clause is a constitutional guarantee found in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments that protects individuals from arbitrary denial of life, liberty, or property by the government without lawful procedures. This clause ensures fair treatment through the judicial system and has been interpreted to include both procedural and substantive rights.
Equal Protection Clause: The Equal Protection Clause is a provision in the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution that requires states to treat all individuals equally under the law. This clause serves as a foundation for civil rights and anti-discrimination laws, ensuring that no individual or group is denied equal protection of the laws.
Fourteenth Amendment: The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, is a crucial part of the U.S. Constitution that addresses citizenship rights and equal protection under the law. It ensures that no state can deny any person the equal protection of the laws, significantly influencing the development of civil rights in America. Its broad language has been pivotal in various legal interpretations, shaping key concepts such as due process and equal protection that resonate across multiple areas of law and modern issues.
Full Faith and Credit Clause: The Full Faith and Credit Clause is a provision in Article IV, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution that requires states to recognize and enforce the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of other states. This clause promotes unity among states by ensuring that legal decisions made in one state are honored in another, which is essential for legal consistency and cooperation across state lines.
Fundamental right to marry: The fundamental right to marry is a constitutionally protected right that guarantees individuals the freedom to enter into a marital union. This right has evolved over time, reflecting societal changes and issues such as gender equality and sexual orientation, particularly in relation to same-sex marriage, which has become a significant modern issue in constitutional discussions.
Lgbtq+ rights movement: The LGBTQ+ rights movement is a social and political campaign advocating for the equal rights and acceptance of individuals who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, or any other sexual orientation or gender identity. This movement has sought to address various forms of discrimination, stigma, and inequality faced by LGBTQ+ individuals, particularly in areas such as marriage, employment, healthcare, and personal safety.
Living Constitution: The Living Constitution is a concept that views the Constitution as a dynamic document that evolves and adapts to contemporary societal needs and values, rather than being fixed or limited to its original meaning. This perspective allows for a more flexible interpretation, enabling the Constitution to address modern issues and reflect changing societal norms.
National Uniformity: National uniformity refers to the principle that laws and regulations should be consistent across the entire country to ensure equal treatment and prevent conflicting state laws. This concept is essential in maintaining a cohesive legal framework that promotes predictability, fairness, and stability in governance and social interactions, particularly when states have the power to regulate in certain areas. Achieving national uniformity can significantly affect how laws are interpreted and enforced at both state and federal levels.
Obergefell v. Hodges: Obergefell v. Hodges is a landmark Supreme Court case decided in 2015 that legalized same-sex marriage across the United States, ruling that state bans on same-sex marriage were unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment. This decision highlighted the evolving interpretation of constitutional rights and civil liberties, particularly in the context of equality and individual freedoms.
Originalism: Originalism is a theory of constitutional interpretation that asserts the Constitution should be understood based on the original meaning or intent of its framers at the time it was ratified. This approach connects to various aspects of law, including the limits of judicial power, the amendment process, and the foundational principles of enumerated powers.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg: Ruth Bader Ginsburg was a groundbreaking U.S. Supreme Court Justice known for her strong advocacy for gender equality and civil rights. Her judicial philosophy was rooted in the belief that the Constitution is a living document that should adapt to societal changes, which influenced her interpretations and decisions on various significant issues, including same-sex marriage and gender discrimination.
State Sovereignty: State sovereignty refers to the authority of a state to govern itself, make its own laws, and manage its internal affairs without external interference. This concept underscores the balance of power between state and federal governments, especially regarding the limits of federal authority over states in areas like legislation, regulation, and enforcement.
Thurgood Marshall: Thurgood Marshall was the first African American Supreme Court Justice, serving from 1967 to 1991. He is best known for his role as a civil rights lawyer, particularly in the landmark case Brown v. Board of Education, which played a crucial role in dismantling racial segregation in public schools. His legacy continues to influence modern discussions around equality and civil rights, especially regarding issues like same-sex marriage and broader societal justice.
United States v. Windsor: United States v. Windsor is a landmark Supreme Court case decided in 2013 that invalidated the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which denied federal recognition of same-sex marriages. The decision significantly advanced LGBTQ+ rights by ruling that the federal government could not discriminate against same-sex couples who were legally married in their states, thus allowing them access to federal benefits and protections.