Replies

In any case, I did look over the ruling on Findlaw, and I answered my own question as to whether this nullified any aspect of Illinois law. It did not. This simply was not a case that involved a conflict between the laws of two different states, so therefore it's irrelevant to this discussion.

That's the whole point. The full faith and credit clause doesn't invalidate state laws, it requires that states recognize the public acts and judgments of other states. That's why a Nevada marriage is recognized in the other 49 states.

"S. Ct." stands for the Supreme Court reporter.

The full faith and credit clause doesn't invalidate state laws, it requires that states recognize the public acts and judgments of other states.

Agreed. But it doesn't say that they have to accomodate their laws to these other public acts and judgements. Let me give an example.

Say my bride and I get married in Nevada and move to California. If we're both of the requisite age, and meet all other legal criteria that California requires for married people, then California is required to treat us like a married couple under its laws. If we are not of the requisite age, then as far as I can see, it is not required to do so, since that would undermine its own laws. It's true that as a matter of comity, the states routinely allow this sort of thing all the time, but nothing I've come across so far suggests that they are required to accomodate what are essentially violations of their laws.

Anyway, enjoy the movie. I'll just freep till I sleep.