Talk:Full Faith and Credit clause

I don't speak legalese. Could the article explain what the clause actually means before telling us about "The clause has been noted for..."? -- Tarquin 19:42, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * Sorry about that! I've done what I could to clear it up, but this is intentionally dense material and IANACL (I Am Not A Constitutional Lawyer).  :)  If someone has access to Travis' plain-english translation, Constitution Translated For Kids, or just happens to be a Constitutional expert, they would probably be able to do a much better job. -- Paige 20:12, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * Much better. Thank you! -- Tarquin

Reversion of homosexual marriage to same-sex marriage
Not only is same-sex the term that is used most frequently on the Wikipedia, a Google search reveals: "homosexual marriage" = 68,300 hits; "same-sex marriage" = 276,000 hits.

Regardless of whether or not an individual user prefers the term homosexual, in order for an encyclopedia to be user-friendly, it must use the preferred terms. -- Paige 23:42, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * "homosexual marriage" is used (ie., 68,300 hits) AND should be noted
 * "individual user"? 68,300+ other potential readers need "user-friendly" status also.
 * Sincerely, JDR


 * "Noted" does not mean the lesser used term should REPLACE the more frequently used term. Please try to be reasonable about this.  Paige 01:20, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * "Noted" does mean the lesser used term should be used when applicable ... and interspersed with the more frequently used term.
 * "be reasonable? I will try (and believe I have been) ... I hope you (and everyone else to edit this article) can too .... JDR

JDR, WHen you did not respond to any of the comments added to Talk:Same-sex marriage, I assumed you were in agreement with the consensus arrived at there. Can you please explain what it is that you dispute in this article? Thanks, Paige 03:38, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Paige, the lack of an immediate response is not an implicit agreement with the discussion. It is useful to not get into a "back and forth" when editing ... and am trying to do that ... and I believe that why this is disputed is explianed in the homosexual marriage article (and associated talk page). Sincerely, JDR

...Later on, back at the Bat Cave...

I was truly puzzled as to why the term homosexual would ever seem to be preferable to same-sex, even though it is less accurate, less inclusive and less common. So I repeated the Google search for "homosexual marriage"


 * "preferable"? YMMV on that ... euphemisms should be discouraged (perferring the more accurate term) ... and term "homosexual marriage" is more accurate ... and term "homosexual marriage" is as inclusive  ... and the term is common ... JDR

Here are the first ten results:
 * www.religioustolerance.org/hom_marr.htm - which aims to argue the merits of same-sex marriage to those who oppose it
 * www.crosswalk.com/news/weblogs/mohler/1241113.html - a Southern Baptist page, opposed to SSM
 * www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/ rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.htm - the Vatican vociferously opposes SSM
 * www.jesus-is-lord.com/senator.htm - Religious site opposed to SSM
 * www.worldnetdaily.com/ news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33660 - Conservative site opposed to SSM
 * www.cnsnews.com/ ViewCommentary.asp?Page=%5C%5CCommentary%5C%5Carchive%5C%5C200310%5C%5CCOM20031015f.html - The MRC's anti-"liberal bias" site, opposed to SSM
 * www.ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/HOMARRIA.TXT - Global Catholic Network site opposed to SSM
 * www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/ 2002/1/15/171832.shtml - Conservative site opposed to SSM
 * www.whitehouse.org/dof/marriage.asp - Republican-run White House site, the administration opposes SSM
 * www.nogaymarriage.com/ - An entire site dedicated to opposing SSM

So, it looks like "homosexual marriage" is the preferred term of religious and conservative groups opposed to same-sex marriage (and one site, religioustolerance.org, trying to attract those same people in order to convince them). Hmmm. Curious. It seems the people using the term are specifically trying to depreciate the arguments of those in favor of SSM. Sounds like it could potentially be pretty POV and disrespectful.


 * Criticisms, and the critics, (and not just of the "religious", as you seem to paint those that use the term as only being) need to be acknowledge for NPOV .... JDR

I refuse to believe that any wikipedian would knowingly attempt to alter the wording of several articles in an effort to deride a specific minority group or further a POV though. Just to be clear, JDR, could you please elaborate on the reasons you want to switch to the term homosexual? Thanks, Paige 05:59, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * As I stated above, it is more accurate ... it is as inclusive ... and it is common. Sincerely, JDR

I came to look at this article because of the discussion on the Talk:Same-sex marriage page. JDR, I can't believe you're disputing the use of same-sex marriage in this article, which contains a single reference! I'm not sure why you continue to insist that "homosexual marriage" is the more accurate term, more inclusive and more common term, but for a few reasons why it's not (and to avoid repetition here) please refer back to Talk:same-sex marriage Exploding Boy 00:41, Feb 8, 2004 (UTC)

General vs. specific
I daresay the chief interest our readers would have in this article nowadays is its bearing on the legal validity of same-sex unions as "marriage". Can we make a separate section for gay marriage, as this seems to be the bulk of the article?

Role of Congress
The clause has an oft-overlooked sentence about the role of Congress in prescribing the "effect" that acts of one state should have in another. Does anyone know how this is expected to relate to DOMA? --Uncle Ed 19:03, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Why exactly does this need a NPOV header? It seems like it is related to the DOMA -- a redirect I just created for you :) -- but other than that, it's a very dry subject.  Pakaran. 10:20, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Public Policy Exception
About half the article deals with DOMA and doesn't even mention the "public policy exception" to FF&C which very probably makes DOMA superfluous regardless of its constitutionality. Tsk Tsk. B 17:23, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)


 * There is no public policy exception to the Full Faith & Credit Clause. See Baker v. General Motors Corp., 522 U.S. 222 (1998). This article states the contrary -- "The Supreme Court has long recognized a "public policy exception" to the Full Faith and Credit clause" -- and should be edited to reflect the current law. However, because the Full Faith & Credit Clause generally only applies to state judgments, and a marriage liscence is not a judgment, Full Faith and Credit has not traditionally been given to marriage licenses. Gregoryc July 22, 2004


 * Could you correct this problem by making edits to the article? Acegikmo1 21:52, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

True, the majority opinion of the court states, "this Court's decisions support no roving "public policy exception" to the full faith and credit due judgments" (emphasis added), BUT there is a public policy exception nonetheless. Merely citing Baker vs GM in which the justices unanimously agreed as to the ultimate decision but in which only 5 (a bare majority) of the justices concurred in it's rationale is problematic; it ignores that jurists and scholars have referred to a "public policy exception" in their analyses of the Supreme Court's inconsistency on this point including the inconsistency in the majority court's opinon in Baker. (Unfortunately "law" is not always consistent, unambiguous or clear, if it ever has even any of these qualities.) To build upon your last comment, Gregoryc, and for clarification to others: the phrase "public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings" of the FF&C clause is commonly interpreted to mean judgments (as opposed to laws)--application of FF&C generally distinguishes between FF&C in regards to state laws and FF&C given to state judgments. It is held by legal experts that: The problem with this judgment/law distinction is how is it possible to give FF&C to the judgments of one state in a separate state without also giving FF&C to its laws. When the FF&C clause is inapplicable, jurists and scholars have referred to this as a "public policy exception" although this could be considered a misnomer since how could there be an exception if it doesn't even apply. On the other hand, given the court's (inconsistent) rationale, it could make sense to explain that what is really going on is that the court is applying a "public policy exception" by deed if not in word (rationale). Read Baker and the other cases on this point and judge for yourself. The article should reflect Gregoryc's comments and mine more explicitly...you non-lawyers, don't be to shy to work our comments into the article. &mdash;B|Talk 16:26, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * (1) in regards to state laws, the FF&C clause does not apply, is not controlling or in other words state laws do not fall within the scope or purview of the FF&C clause--FF&C does not need to be given by one state to a separate state's laws; and
 * (2) in regards to enforcing judgments of one state in a separate state, the FF&C clause governs and FF&C generally must be given by one state to the judgments of another state.


 * As a side note, as the same-sex marriage cases ripen for judicial review, the Supreme Court will address the same-sex marriage issues relating to the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses before addressing the FF&C issue if it even addresses the FF&C issue at all. If the Supreme Court recognizes no right to same sex marriage under the EP and DP clauses, only then will it address FF&C issues. Presuming no pre-emptive federal amendment, if the Supreme Court does not recognize a right to same sex marriage under either the EP or DP clauses, it is also not likely that the court will mandate that such marriages be recognized under the FF&C clause in states which prohibit them.  &mdash;B|Talk 16:46, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)