"...the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof."I read that to mean that Congress may, by statute, make an exception to the "full faith and credit clause" in the case of recognition of gay marriage in non-gay marriage states.
This is almost certainly an erroneous interpretation. Under this rationale, the entire Full Faith and Credit Clause could be made moot.
I think the use of the word effect here is similar to it's use in the Fourth Amendment, meaning a fixed form. That's consistent with the antecedent words "Acts, Records and Proceedings", where it would be an abrupt departure to consider the word "effect" here to mean "cultural effect" or "results".
Perhaps you are right about this, tdadams. In all probability, the present SCOTUS would see it that way. (A good many of the sitting justices appear to be "doctrinal" rather than "dynamic" thinkers.)
But I was thinking of what the Framers were trying to do here. I don't believe they thought that, in the Constitution, they were laying down rigid, "one-size-fits-all" rules, done once and forevermore; for they knew that future circumstances were bound to change, and the foundational law of the land had to be flexible enough to adapt, within broad constitutional parameters.
They did say "Congress may by general Laws prescribe the manner...and the Effect...." Looks to me like the Framers did intend Congress to have some constitutional discretion here.
And don't forget, at the time Article IV was written, Congress was divided into the people's house (the Legislature) and the other house, which then represented state governments. (That all changed with the 17th Amendment, which caused the Senate to be elected popularly, rather than appointed by state legislatures.) So the several states were definitely directly part of the consultation on the "may", the "by general laws prescribe", and the "effect" -- at least at that time.
Thanks for writing and sharing your views.