I find this very peculiar. Federalism fan Fred Thompson doesn't want a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. But he also doesn't want states that ban same-sex marriage to have to recognize such marriages that are performed in other states - so it seems he's supporting a constitutional amendment to change the Full Faith and Credit clause. Have I got that right?
Posted by armand at August 20, 2007 11:45 AM | TrackBack | Posted to PoliticsErm... Thompson is a dork, with all the Constitutional and Federal law knowledge you'd expect from an actor who's played a prosecutor on a least-common-denominator-plot-driven series (even if Mr. Sutherland does rock as an actor, just like dear ol' dad).
Like it or not, marriage is tied into just about every aspect of our legal lives (through inheritance law, if nothing else), and if you start yanking threads out of the Full Faith and Credit clause to the point where it would invalidate (for example) a judicial finding in divorce court, you are asking for (apologies) a shit-storm of truly Biblical proportions.
Posted by: StealthBadger at August 21, 2007 03:56 PM | PERMALINKMadison's desired version ("...and the legislature shall, by general laws, prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings, shall be proved, and the effect which judgments, obtained in one state, shall have in another.") suggests that there could be original intent construed to suggest that Congress could pass a law whereby states are not bound entirely by the whims of other states, be it in legalizing/criminalizing pot or benefiting/banning gay marriage. This would be a way of reigning in federal power (the federal government would essentially give power back to the states) and appeal to conservatives as such.
Mmmm - I guess this opens up all kinds of con law issues, but why would Madison's DESIRED version make the slightest difference? The text as ratified is what we have to work with, not Madison's personal preferences.
Posted by: Armand at August 25, 2007 11:54 AM | PERMALINK