The FF&C clause would not require state A from recognizing state B's gay marriage because (1) I don't believe that marriage has ever been held to be an "act" under the FF&C clause, (2) there is an exception that has been carved out of the FF&C clause so that a state need not recognize an act of another state if doing so would violate that state's public policy (and most states have already passed legislation precluding recognition of out-of-state gay marriages) and (3)the FF&C clause also provides that Congress provides for the manner in which FF&C is given effect...and Congress has already passed DOMA which provides that no state need recognize an out-of-state gay marriage.
All of this is in accord with the text of the Constitution and provides each state with the ability to deal with, in Madison's words when describing the powers the Constitution left with the states, "all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people."
In case Boaz and his sympathizers missed the point, states' rights are written into the Constitution but ignored by any court with total impunity while abortion and lavender "marriage" "rights" are created out of whole cloth by a judiciary drunk on its own ability to cram these abominations down the throats of normal Americans without fear of long overdue punishment of such judges
I can't argue you with you there...but that proves Boaz' point...nationalizing the issue of abortion, for example, has led to millions of abortions since 1973...indeed, its led to your income being confiscated by the IRS and used, in part, to fund these abortions.
The Constitution also fails to provide a punishment mechanism for judges who invent the law as they please rather than applying the law as it is written
We don't need to punish judges...we just need to demand that the other (elected) branches understand that they are not subordinate branches of government...that the Judiciary is established in Article III of the Constitution and Congress is established in Article I...that when the federal courts pretend that the US Constitution dictates that the sovereign state of Texas must permit gay sex...that the state of Texas need not passively obey...and that neither the Congress nor the Executive branches of the federal government should enforce such fictitous, illegitimate court rulings.
But the elected branches won't do that because most people still believe that we must simply obey whatever the federal courts tell us to do....that the federal government is superior to the state governments (in some areas it is...in most it is not) and the courts are superior to the elected branches...and most elected officials don't have the courage to do the right thing if they believe it is risky politically.
The solution is to educate the American public which is most woefully ignorant of the US Constitution and the very limited powers of the federal government (not surprisingly, thanks to the government-run and increasingly federally controlled public education system). Once enough of the public understands the Constitution, realizes that its not some complex legal douments only understandable to lawyers and demands strict adherance to the Constitution...then we can force the federal government to return power to the states and local government.
While our federalist system is not a perfect form of government...its the least imperfect form of government possible...and its the one most likely to make the largest number of Americans happy with the laws under which they live...some states might be socialist, some might be libertarian, some might be as Biblically-based as the Plymouth colony
We have federal court decisions banning street preaching on PUBLIC SIDEWALKS near abortion mills lest we might make the killers uncomfortable. Police brutality perpetrated against pro-lifers is law enforcement but a crime when perpetrated against the left.
You underestimate the evil that lurks in our Court system. I might not "need" a Corvette, but if I can afford one, I can buy one. I may not "need" a gun but likewise. Etc. Punishing judges is the greatest enjoyment I can imagine at tyhe expense of the enemies of our civilization. Whether I need it or not, I want it sooooooo much that I cannot put it in words adequately.
I will take, as a TEMPORARY expedient, the complete return of the abortion question to the political process of state legislation. Beyond that, nothing less than the end of legal abortion with the sole exception of situations of genuine IMMINENT PHYSICAL AND HIGHLY LIKELY threat to the life of the mother will do.
Colorado repealed by a legally authorized referendum a gay "rights" law that had been passed by legislative leftists. The Fedcourt slime intervened and overturned the referendum and restored rumprangers' "rights" on the claim that the FedConstitution required restoration. What would be next? Will some pair of Lavender Larries file suit against a state whose legislature has failed to enact such laws? Will some FedJudge then discover the federal "constitutional" "right" to have the legislation of their dreams enacted whether the legislators want to or not?
If you think that scenario unlikely, decades ago in Boston one FedJudge Garrity took control of the Boston School Sysytem to see to it that the system be wrecked by racial bussing schemes. When the School Board objected to his tactics (in Boston no less!), Garrity ordered each School Board Member to vote as he personally dictated in favor of his bussing scheme under penalty of individual contept of court findings and individual punishment. This was not overturned on appeal. Similar scenario in Kansas City when a FedJudicial tyrant ordered the appropriation of massive amounts of new funding (and specific luxuries previously undreamed of) for the gummint skewel system abandoned by whites after His Majesty ordered a massive bussing scheme.
Think as we will in any direction on those old bussing schemes or the racial attitudes involved, those judges ignored all boundaries and there is no reason whatsoever to believe that they will not be models for future judicial tyranny on other subjects. The Federal Judiciary and many state judiciaries are running amok.
In the real world, you are wrong on the F, F & Credit Clause. No one is following Madison on this in today's judiciary. DOMA will not suffice. The exception will disappear as soon as the elitist judges are asked to apply it to packer "rights".