Betty, you didn't make clear why you think an amendment is necessary.
What terrible thing will happen when the "Full Faith and Credit" issue rears its head?
It's my understanding that States can simply refuse to honor licenses issued by other States that are not up to their standards, -- or are repugnant to the US Constitution.
Hello tpaine! It's so good to see you again. Long time no see....
RE: The above italics. I don't see how this understanding squares with the plain language of the text of Article IV, which is that part of the Constitution pertaining to relations between the several States. At Section 1 we read:
"Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And Congress may by general laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof."
The first sentence does not seem to leave the several states with much discretion WRT recognizing gay marriages contracted in another state. When gay marriage licenses start to be issued in Massachusetts this coming May, each license grant will be a public act supposedly legitimated by the judicial proceeding of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court of last November, ordering the state legislature to accommodate gay marriage in Massachusetts. Questions of the constitutionality of the action of this Court aside, gay marriage will become legal in Massachusetts on May 17th.
Now the second sentence refers to what discretion the federal Congress has to regulate the effect of the public acts of one state on other states. The Defense of Marriage Act seeks to do this by making an exception to the "full faith and credit" rule for gay marriages.
I suspect this will not be good enough. For it can be argued that it is unconstitutional for Congress to make such an exception on civil rights grounds. And eventually, some litigant will come along and make that argument.
This is why I think a constitutional amendment is required. As an act of the Whole People (assuming it were ratified by three-fourths of the states), it would leave zero discretion to judges to determine the application of "full faith and credit" in the issue of interstate recognition of gay marriage.
You might disagree with me here, but I really do think that, in a democracy, the people and not the courts are meant to lay out the moral and social boundaries of society. To leave it to the judges is to invite tyranny.