Open main menu
Home
Random
Recent changes
Special pages
Community portal
Preferences
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Incubator escapee wiki
Search
User menu
Talk
Dark mode
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Editing
Full Faith and Credit Clause
(section)
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
== Application to family law == The Full Faith and Credit Clause has been applied to [[orders of protection]], for which the clause was invoked by the [[Violence Against Women Act]], and [[child support]], for which the enforcement of the clause was spelled out in the Federal Full Faith and Credit for Child Support Orders Act ({{UnitedStatesCode|28|1738B}}). Until the Supreme Court struck down all laws banning interracial marriage in 1967, a number of states banned [[Interracial marriage in the United States|interracial marriage]] and did not recognize marriage certificates issued in other states for interracial couples. The full faith and credit clause was never used to force a state to recognize a marriage it did not wish to recognize.<ref name="interracial">{{cite news |work=New York Times |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/17/us/bans-on-interracial-unions-offer-perspective-on-gay-ones.html?pagewanted=1 |title=Bans on Interracial Unions Offer Perspective on Gay Ones |author=Adam Liptak |date= March 17, 2004}}</ref> However, the existence of a [[common-law marriage]] in a sister state (still{{clarify timeframe|date=July 2021}} available in nine states and the District of Columbia) has been recognized in divorce or dissolution of marriage cases. The clause's application to state-sanctioned [[Same-sex marriage in the United States|same-sex marriage]]s, [[civil union]]s, and [[domestic partnership]]s is unresolved, although the case of marriage has been rendered moot. In 1996 the U.S. Congress enacted the [[Defense of Marriage Act]] (DOMA), a statute defining marriage as being between one man and one woman for federal purposes and allowed states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. Whether the latter provision of DOMA violated the Full Faith and Credit Clause was debated among legal commentators.<ref>Sanford F. Schram, ''After Welfare: The Culture of Postindustrial Social Policy'' (NYU Press, 2000), p. 115.</ref> Some scholars viewed DOMA as a violation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause.<ref>Heather Hamilton, [https://via.library.depaul.edu/law-review/vol47/iss4/5/ The Defense of Marriage Act: A Critical Analysis of Its Constitutionality Under the Full Faith and Credit Clause], 47 DePaul L. Rev. 943 (1998).</ref><ref>James M. Patten, [https://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/lawreview/vol38/iss3/7/ The Defense of Marriage Act: How Congress Said No to Full Faith and Credit and the Constitution], 38 Santa Clara L. Rev. 939 (1998).</ref> Other legal scholars disagreed.<ref>Patrick J. Borchers, [https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=899385 The Essential Irrelevance of the Full Faith and Credit Clause to the Same-Sex Marriage Debate], 38 Creighton L. Rev. 353 (2005).</ref><ref>Timothy Joseph Keefer, [https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/wlulr/vol54/iss4/8/ DOMA as a Defensible Exercise of Congressional Power Under the Full-Faith-and-Credit Clause], 54 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 1635 (1997).</ref> Ultimately, the U.S. Supreme Court in ''[[United States v. Windsor]]'' struck down DOMA as a violation of the Constitution's [[Equal Protection Clause]] and did not address the Full Faith and Credit Clause in its decision.<ref>Steve Sanders, [http://ilj.law.indiana.edu/articles/12-Sanders.pdf Is the Full Faith and Credit Clause Still "Irrelevant" to Same-Sex Marriage?: Toward a Reconsideration of the Conventional Wisdom], 89 Ind. L. J. 95 (2014).</ref> In March 2016, the Supreme Court ruled in ''[[V.L. v. E.L.]]'' that under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, the State of Alabama must recognize the adoption decree granted to a same-sex couple by a Georgia state court in 2007, regardless of how that court came to its conclusion granting the decree. The [[Respect for Marriage Act]] repealed the [[Defense of Marriage Act]] (DOMA) and required the U.S. federal government to recognize the validity of [[Same-sex marriage in the United States|same-sex]] and [[Interracial marriage in the United States|interracial]] marriages in the United States, and to protect [[Freedom of religion|religious liberty]]. Its author, Senator [[Tammy Baldwin]], has stated that its constitutional authority stems from the Full Faith and Credit Clause.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Katz |first=Lauren |date=2022-12-10 |title=Sen. Tammy Baldwin reflects on why the Respect for Marriage Act is necessary |url=https://www.vox.com/podcasts/2022/12/10/23502477/respect-for-marriage-act-tammy-baldwin |access-date=2022-12-11 |website=Vox |language=en}}</ref>
Edit summary
(Briefly describe your changes)
By publishing changes, you agree to the
Terms of Use
, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the
CC BY-SA 4.0 License
and the
GFDL
. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)