[PatrickHenry]

I don't expect you to know the dichotomy between "full faith and credit" vs. "void against public policy."

But I do. That's why I mentioned Dred Scott, which required a Constitutional amendment to undo. I haven't researched the point, but I'd be surprised -- blown away, really -- if some state's public policy could override the full faith and credit clause of the Federal Constitution. That's why I think gay marriage in one state must be recognized everywhere, and why I think an exception to the FF&C clause must be carved out for status-creating laws. That's my free opinion, and valued accordingly.

[balrog666]

Wow! Looks like the trolls have given up (or taken the night off)!

[CobaltBlue]

A state may refuse to recognize a marriage which is legal in another state because it is void against the public policy of the first state. That's black letter law. If Utah decided to recognize bigamous marriages, I doubt very much that Virginia would honor them.

How that actually plays out in your state is another matter.

[CobaltBlue]

>> Dred Scott, which required a Constitutional amendment to undo<<

One could argue that Dred Scott actually required a war to undo.

I have nothing but contempt for Justice Taney, so please don't get me started on Dred Scott.

To be fair to all involved, the war was probably inevitable when the Constitution was enacted, it was just delayed.

If the non-slave-holding states and the slave-holding states had formed separate countries, eventually there stil would have been a war between them.

[Doctor Stochastic]

At one time (during the 1960s) Wisconsin did not (in general) recognise divorces granted in (some) other states. Neither did Wisconsin recognise marriages subsqeuent to such divorces. It was irrelevant whether the original marriage took place in Wisconsin. Lots of scams arose from this state of affairs.