First, why does a decision by a Massachusetts court present a national problem? That’s due to the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the US Constitution, which requires all states to recognize the official acts of other states. And a marriage certificate from one state is clearly represents an official act, when that couple travels to another state.Question: Are states truly required to accept marriages that conflict with their own laws?
To put the question another way, let's use an example other than marriage. Say two people in Tennessee sign a contract of a kind that's illegal in Massachusetts (I don't know, maybe a yellow-dog contract or something). If they move to Massachusetts, would Massachusetts be obliged to enforce this contract?
There is a grey area in FF&C and I'll give two examples, one from contracts and the other from marital law. 1. A gambling establishment in a state where gamblig is legal, got a judgment there against a customer who had gotten credit to gamble, lost the money, not paid, and returned to his home state. Casino got a judgment, and then went to the gambler's home state to collect on the judgment, a state where gambling as illegal. Held: on public policy grounds the home state did not have to allow enforcement of that judgment. (Old case, I believe the casinos in Las Vegas have found a way around this result, in recent decades.
2. A couple who are first cousins marry in a state where that is permitted. Then they move to a state which forbids first cousins from marrying. Must that marriage be recognized as valid in the second state? Held: since the marriage was valid where entered into, it remains valid in the second state. This is the case on which the proponents of homosexual marriage will hang their hats as they fan out from Massachusetts.
John / Billybob