The Supreme Court will never get involved now. Over half the states have spoken. The majority of State constitutions are not going to upended by the Supreme Court of the United States. As for the “Full Faith” clause, that itself is dependent on legal wording, which every state has in place (except Mass.), and none of them include language accepting homosexual marriage as a bonafide arrangement.
Massachusetts doing what it did is itself a violation of Full Faith, because it is a two-way street. One state cannot and will not willy-nilly decide what the other 49 states must accept. As my legal beagle has told me, allowing that to happen will open doors to other states making laws forcing the other 49 states into situation and it will never end.
>>>The Supreme Court will never get involved now. Over half the states have spoken. The majority of State constitutions are not going to upended by the Supreme Court
Abraham Lincoln once put a proposition to vote by his Cabinet. All present voted “nay”. Lincoln then voted “aye” and declared the “Ayes” have it. Just as Constitutional law isn’t a matter of majority vote, and Full Faith and Credit is fundamental and firmly established.
>>>As my legal beagle has told me, allowing that to happen will open doors to other states making laws forcing the other 49 states into situation
That already occurs. I already gave the example of the quickie Reno divorce where one state trumped the restrictive divorce laws of every other state. When those people went back to their original state, the law didn’t force them to stay married. It couldn’t, because they had legally dissolved the marriage and that had to be recognized and given force by their home state.
Voters and legislators can make nearly any sort of local laws they wish. But in the long run none of these can supersede the settled Constitutional requirement that a legal marriage from another state be recognized in all other states.
Yes it is a hot potato and one a Supreme Court justice would probably rather avoid, much like the DC Gun case. But as more gays marry in the states that do permit it, and as they move around the country and run up against the local barriers and file legal challenges, the Court will eventually have no choice but to rule. Without upending precedent back to Marshall I don’t see how else they can decide but to maintain the primacy of FF&C.