US court ruling against gay marriage could cause legal 'chaos'

[webfact]

Court ruling against gay marriage could cause legal 'chaos'
By MARK SHERMAN

WASHINGTON (AP) — Gay and lesbian couples could face legal chaos if the Supreme Court rules against same-sex marriage in the next few weeks.

Same-sex weddings could come to a halt in many states, depending on a confusing mix of lower-court decisions and the sometimes-contradictory views of state and local officials.

Among the 36 states in which same-sex couples can now marry are 20 in which federal judges invoked the Constitution to strike down marriage bans.

Those rulings would be in conflict with the nation's highest court if the justices uphold the power of states to limit marriage to heterosexual couples. A decision is expected by late June in cases from Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee.

Top officials in some states, including California, seem determined to allow gay and lesbian couples to continue to marry no matter how the court decision comes out. But some county clerks, who actually issue marriage licenses, might not go along, experts said.

In other states, a high court ruling in favor of state bans would serve to prohibit any more such unions, but also could give rise to new efforts to repeal marriage bans through the legislature or the ballot.

The scenario may be unlikely, given the Supreme Court's role in allowing those lower court rulings to take effect before the justices themselves decided the issue. But if the court doesn't endorse same-sex marriage nationwide, "it would be chaos," said Howard Wasserman, a Florida International University law professor.

Marriages already on the books probably are safe, said several scholars and civil liberties lawyers. "There's a very strong likelihood these marriages would have to be respected, no matter what," said Christopher Stoll, senior staff attorney with the National Center for Lesbian Rights.

Gay and lesbian couples could continue to marry in the 16 states that have same-sex marriage because of state court rulings, acts of the legislature or statewide votes.

Similarly, the 14 states that prohibit same-sex couples from marrying, including the four directly involved in the Supreme Court cases, could continue enforcing their state marriage laws. That would include Alabama, where a federal judge has struck down the state's constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, but put her ruling on hold pending the high court's decision.

Of the remaining 20 states, any that fought unsuccessfully to preserve marriage bans would not have much trouble resuming enforcement. "That state can immediately start saying we're going to deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples going forward," said Cornell University law professor Michael Dorf.

That list might include Alaska, Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Montana, Nevada, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Utah, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming.

Officials in some of those states refused to comment on how they would respond, citing the ongoing Supreme Court case. "I'm just not going to speculate on what the court may or may not do," said Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback.

Things might be different in California, Colorado, Oregon, Pennsylvania and Virginia because top elected officials did not contest lower-court rulings in favor of same-sex marriage. Courts in those states issued orders, or injunctions, that forbid the state from enforcing the constitutional amendments or state laws that limit marriage to a man and a woman.

Typically, a participant in the lawsuit that led to the injunction has to ask the judge to undo it. But if the governor and attorney general are same-sex marriage supporters, they may have little incentive to go back into court. In California, for instance, Gov. Jerry Brown and Attorney General Kamala Harris both opposed Proposition 8, the state constitutional amendment that prohibited same-sex marriage. "I think it's very unlikely that anyone would try to turn back the clock in California," Stoll said.

But Gene Schaerr, a Washington-based lawyer who has defended same-sex marriage bans, said he thinks even in states where the political leadership favors gay and lesbian unions, county clerks who actually issue marriage licenses would be on safe ground if they were to deny licenses to same-sex couples.

In Schaerr's view, only the clerks in Alameda and Los Angeles counties are bound by the 2010 injunction issued by U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker. A Supreme Court ruling rejecting a constitutional right to marry for same-sex couples would "free the clerks in counties other than Los Angeles and Alameda to adhere to Proposition 8," Schaerr said.

Colorado Attorney General Cynthia Coffman, a Republican, said she supports same-sex marriage, but believes voters need to remove the marriage ban from the state constitution — and would replace it with legal protection for same-sex marriage if given the chance. Coffman said she would "gladly defend" such an outcome.

If same-sex marriages cease in Virginia, Attorney General Mark Herring would try to get the state General Assembly to repeal the state's statutory and constitutional bans, Herring spokesman Michael Kelly said.

Some gay rights groups and state officials said the chance the court would not come out in favor of same-sex marriage is remote.

"Recent history of the past eight months, plus all the rulings of the past 20 years, don't indicate that to us this is going to go against us," said Tom Witt, executive director of gay rights organization Equality Kansas. "It could, but a giant meteor could fall on my head in the next five seconds."

None did.
___

Associated Press writers Kim Chandler in Montgomery, Alabama, Jonathan J. Cooper in Salem, Oregon, Maria Fisher in Kansas City, Meg Kinnard in Columbia, South Carolina, Lisa Leff in San Francisco, Larry O'Dell in Richmond, Virginia, and Kristen Wyatt in Denver contributed to this report.


-- (c) Associated Press 2015-06-10

[Seastallion]

Enough already! Equal rights for every person, no matter what your religious beliefs are!

Why is that so hard to understand or implement?

[John1012]

I always thought marriage was to procreate and provide a stable environment for children. In western society , these days, civil partnerships provide as much security for 'partners' and children as marriage does. So, marriage has really become symbolic as far as partnership rights are concerned.Who gives a sh*t, except religious followers. Those that follow a specific set of personal beliefs have to adhere to the laws of society that they live in, if they do not wish to, they are democratically allowed to leave and live in a society with different laws. If they do not they are allowed to use their right of free speech to criticise who or what they dislike, as long as they do not encourage law breaking. Similarly, those of gay persusion should not try and impose their views upon a society opposed to those views.

[NeverSure]

This is another one of those cases that isn't what it appears to be about. It's not about gay marriage or gay rights. It's about States' Rights.

In the US, the Constitution clearly forbids the federal government from making laws it isn't authorized to make. The Tenth Amendment to The Constitution says this and only this:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

When the US was in its infancy many people, having fled a king in Europe didn't want a powerful central government. After the Constitution was ratified they quickly came together again and ratified all at once the first ten amendments which are called "The Bill of Rights". The is the reserved rights of the people and of the states against the federal government.

The argument is that marriage is regulated individually and sometimes differently by different states just as are many other important things. Again, laws can vary by state.

This debate comes down to whether the federal government has the constitutional authority to make any law on this subject which would bind any individual state, in this case meaning all of the states with one law. The thing then to watch is whether the Supreme Court which makes these rulings about what the Constitution says will come down on the side of states, or on the side of the federal government.

This is a Constitution debate and I have no idea what the outcome will be. The court has many times ruled in favor of the states and against the feds and if it does this time, the people in each state will have to take up the fight with the state legislatures. If it rules against the states then federal law will rule.

[thousandpercent]

I always thought marriage was to procreate and provide a stable environment for children. In western society , these days, civil partnerships provide as much security for 'partners' and children as marriage does. So, marriage has really become symbolic as far as partnership rights are concerned.Who gives a sh*t, except religious followers. Those that follow a specific set of personal beliefs have to adhere to the laws of society that they live in, if they do not wish to, they are democratically allowed to leave and live in a society with different laws. If they do not they are allowed to use their right of free speech to criticise who or what they dislike, as long as they do not encourage law breaking. Similarly, those of gay persusion should not try and impose their views upon a society opposed to those views.

Wow!

"I always thought marriage was to procreate and provide a stable environment for children."

So you think that infertile persons, like women past menopause, and veterans with war injuries that render them unable to have children should be forbidden to marry? Wow! What you always though was wrong.

"In western society , these days, civil partnerships provide as much security for 'partners' and children as marriage does."

Wow! There are no "civil partnerships" in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, or Tennessee. Nor in the 32 other states with marriage equality. Nor in the 16 states that don't have marriage equality. Nor in any Federal district or territory. So "civil partnerships" don't provide anything. Who told you this nonsense? Was is Fox News? It was Fox News, wasn't it?

"So, marriage has really become symbolic as far as partnership rights are concerned."

Wow! According to the United States Government Accountability Office (GAO), there are 1,138 statutory provisions in which marital status is a factor in determining benefits, rights, and privileges. You think health insurance, the right to reside with your family, and military housing are "symbolic"? Why do you hate soldiers and sailors so much? Did a woman in uniform peg you? Why do you want to take mothers away from their babies? Why do you want sick children to be denied healthcare? Wow!

"Who gives a sh*t,"

Tens of millions of gay people, and the people who respect them.

"Those that follow a specific set of personal beliefs have to adhere to the laws of society that they live in,"

Cool, because the laws of society allow marriage equality in 36 states. And the law allows all other states to adopt marriage equality. So you're a supporter of gay marriage. Thanks. You're doing the right thing. The thing your masters at Fox News didn't tell you is that the law isn't clear. So we don't know yet how to adhere to them. That was made clear in the article, but I guess the big words confused you.

"if they do not wish to, they are democratically allowed to leave and live in a society with different laws."

And if you don't like it, you are democratically allowed to f/u/c/k right off.

"If they do not they are allowed to use their right of free speech to criticise who or what they dislike,"

You know what else they are allowed to do? Seek judicial review. And that's what's happening. So I guess you're very happy about this litigation.

"as long as they do not encourage law breaking."

I'll bet you said that when women were not allowed to vote. And when black people were not allowed to attend Ole Miss. IF YOU DON'T LIKE THE LAW, LEAVE THE COUNTRY! MLK BELONGS IN JAIL FOR ENCOURAGING PEACEFUL PROTEST!

"Similarly, those of gay persusion should not try and impose their views upon a society opposed to those views."

THOSE OF THE FEMALE PERSUASION AND THOSE OF THE NIGGER PERSUASION SHOULD NOT TRY AND IMPOSE EQUALITY UPON A SOCIETY OPPOSED TO IT! Guess what, Grandpa, a decisive majority of Americans support marriage equality! So you should not try and impose your bigotry upon a society opposed to second class status for gay people. How does it feel to lose? Are you crying?

[thousandpercent]

This is another one of those cases that isn't what it appears to be about. It's not about gay marriage or gay rights. It's about States' Rights.

In the US, the Constitution clearly forbids the federal government from making laws it isn't authorized to make. The Tenth Amendment to The Constitution says this and only this:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

When the US was in its infancy many people, having fled a king in Europe didn't want a powerful central government. After the Constitution was ratified they quickly came together again and ratified all at once the first ten amendments which are called "The Bill of Rights". The is the reserved rights of the people and of the states against the federal government.

The argument is that marriage is regulated individually and sometimes differently by different states just as are many other important things. Again, laws can vary by state.

This debate comes down to whether the federal government has the constitutional authority to make any law on this subject which would bind any individual state, in this case meaning all of the states with one law. The thing then to watch is whether the Supreme Court which makes these rulings about what the Constitution says will come down on the side of states, or on the side of the federal government.

This is a Constitution debate and I have no idea what the outcome will be. The court has many times ruled in favor of the states and against the feds and if it does this time, the people in each state will have to take up the fight with the state legislatures. If it rules against the states then federal law will rule.

This case is not based on a state'a rights theory. It's based mainly on the due process clause of the Constitution. You also missed Ammendments IX, XIV, and the equal protection clauses.

[mochafan]

I always thought marriage was to procreate and provide a stable environment for children. In western society , these days, civil partnerships provide as much security for 'partners' and children as marriage does. So, marriage has really become symbolic as far as partnership rights are concerned.Who gives a sh*t, except religious followers. Those that follow a specific set of personal beliefs have to adhere to the laws of society that they live in, if they do not wish to, they are democratically allowed to leave and live in a society with different laws. If they do not they are allowed to use their right of free speech to criticise who or what they dislike, as long as they do not encourage law breaking. Similarly, those of gay persusion should not try and impose their views upon a society opposed to those views.

Wow!

"I always thought marriage was to procreate and provide a stable environment for children."

So you think that infertile persons, like women past menopause, and veterans with war injuries that render them unable to have children should be forbidden to marry? Wow! What you always though was wrong.

"In western society , these days, civil partnerships provide as much security for 'partners' and children as marriage does."

Wow! There are no "civil partnerships" in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, or Tennessee. Nor in the 32 other states with marriage equality. Nor in the 16 states that don't have marriage equality. Nor in any Federal district or territory. So "civil partnerships" don't provide anything. Who told you this nonsense? Was is Fox News? It was Fox News, wasn't it?

"So, marriage has really become symbolic as far as partnership rights are concerned."

Wow! According to the United States Government Accountability Office (GAO), there are 1,138 statutory provisions in which marital status is a factor in determining benefits, rights, and privileges. You think health insurance, the right to reside with your family, and military housing are "symbolic"? Why do you hate soldiers and sailors so much? Did a woman in uniform peg you? Why do you want to take mothers away from their babies? Why do you want sick children to be denied healthcare? Wow!

"Who gives a sh*t,"

Tens of millions of gay people, and the people who respect them.

"Those that follow a specific set of personal beliefs have to adhere to the laws of society that they live in,"

Cool, because the laws of society allow marriage equality in 36 states. And the law allows all other states to adopt marriage equality. So you're a supporter of gay marriage. Thanks. You're doing the right thing. The thing your masters at Fox News didn't tell you is that the law isn't clear. So we don't know yet how to adhere to them. That was made clear in the article, but I guess the big words confused you.

"if they do not wish to, they are democratically allowed to leave and live in a society with different laws."

And if you don't like it, you are democratically allowed to f/u/c/k right off.

"If they do not they are allowed to use their right of free speech to criticise who or what they dislike,"

You know what else they are allowed to do? Seek judicial review. And that's what's happening. So I guess you're very happy about this litigation.

"as long as they do not encourage law breaking."

I'll bet you said that when women were not allowed to vote. And when black people were not allowed to attend Ole Miss. IF YOU DON'T LIKE THE LAW, LEAVE THE COUNTRY! MLK BELONGS IN JAIL FOR ENCOURAGING PEACEFUL PROTEST!

"Similarly, those of gay persusion should not try and impose their views upon a society opposed to those views."

THOSE OF THE FEMALE PERSUASION AND THOSE OF THE NIGGER PERSUASION SHOULD NOT TRY AND IMPOSE EQUALITY UPON A SOCIETY OPPOSED TO IT! Guess what, Grandpa, a decisive majority of Americans support marriage equality! So you should not try and impose your bigotry upon a society opposed to second class status for gay people. How does it feel to lose? Are you crying?

Well said

Edited June 10, 2015 by mochafan

[gchurch259]

Good reply, These people only make up 13% to 16% of the population and want to wipe their ways in the face of the majority. I agree it is a States Rights Issue, and if one does not the laws of the State they live in they have the right to move.

This is another one of those cases that isn't what it appears to be about. It's not about gay marriage or gay rights. It's about States' Rights.

In the US, the Constitution clearly forbids the federal government from making laws it isn't authorized to make. The Tenth Amendment to The Constitution says this and only this:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

When the US was in its infancy many people, having fled a king in Europe didn't want a powerful central government. After the Constitution was ratified they quickly came together again and ratified all at once the first ten amendments which are called "The Bill of Rights". The is the reserved rights of the people and of the states against the federal government.

The argument is that marriage is regulated individually and sometimes differently by different states just as are many other important things. Again, laws can vary by state.

This debate comes down to whether the federal government has the constitutional authority to make any law on this subject which would bind any individual state, in this case meaning all of the states with one law. The thing then to watch is whether the Supreme Court which makes these rulings about what the Constitution says will come down on the side of states, or on the side of the federal government.

This is a Constitution debate and I have no idea what the outcome will be. The court has many times ruled in favor of the states and against the feds and if it does this time, the people in each state will have to take up the fight with the state legislatures. If it rules against the states then federal law will rule.

[NeverSure]

This is another one of those cases that isn't what it appears to be about. It's not about gay marriage or gay rights. It's about States' Rights.

In the US, the Constitution clearly forbids the federal government from making laws it isn't authorized to make. The Tenth Amendment to The Constitution says this and only this:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

When the US was in its infancy many people, having fled a king in Europe didn't want a powerful central government. After the Constitution was ratified they quickly came together again and ratified all at once the first ten amendments which are called "The Bill of Rights". The is the reserved rights of the people and of the states against the federal government.

The argument is that marriage is regulated individually and sometimes differently by different states just as are many other important things. Again, laws can vary by state.

This debate comes down to whether the federal government has the constitutional authority to make any law on this subject which would bind any individual state, in this case meaning all of the states with one law. The thing then to watch is whether the Supreme Court which makes these rulings about what the Constitution says will come down on the side of states, or on the side of the federal government.

This is a Constitution debate and I have no idea what the outcome will be. The court has many times ruled in favor of the states and against the feds and if it does this time, the people in each state will have to take up the fight with the state legislatures. If it rules against the states then federal law will rule.

This case is not based on a state'a rights theory. It's based mainly on the due process clause of the Constitution. You also missed Ammendments IX, XIV, and the equal protection clauses.

We aren't disagreeing. If the SC finds that it's a federal constitutional right then that will prevail upon all states. If instead it finds that it isn't covered under the US Constitution then it will remain with the states to decide. I never mentioned states' rights but they are there unless the SC rules that it's covered under the US Constitution.

[timendres]

This is another one of those cases that isn't what it appears to be about. It's not about gay marriage or gay rights. It's about States' Rights.

In the US, the Constitution clearly forbids the federal government from making laws it isn't authorized to make. The Tenth Amendment to The Constitution says this and only this:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

When the US was in its infancy many people, having fled a king in Europe didn't want a powerful central government. After the Constitution was ratified they quickly came together again and ratified all at once the first ten amendments which are called "The Bill of Rights". The is the reserved rights of the people and of the states against the federal government.

The argument is that marriage is regulated individually and sometimes differently by different states just as are many other important things. Again, laws can vary by state.

This debate comes down to whether the federal government has the constitutional authority to make any law on this subject which would bind any individual state, in this case meaning all of the states with one law. The thing then to watch is whether the Supreme Court which makes these rulings about what the Constitution says will come down on the side of states, or on the side of the federal government.

This is a Constitution debate and I have no idea what the outcome will be. The court has many times ruled in favor of the states and against the feds and if it does this time, the people in each state will have to take up the fight with the state legislatures. If it rules against the states then federal law will rule.

This case is not based on a state'a rights theory. It's based mainly on the due process clause of the Constitution. You also missed Ammendments IX, XIV, and the equal protection clauses.

And with regards to States Rights, this issue has a facet involving inter-state law, which does actually bring in the Feds. States are expected to respect the licenses of other states. This is why I can drive through Minnesota with a Michigan driver's license, and why I don't have to re-marry if I move to another state. When inter-state laws conflict, the Federal level comes into play.

That said, I have always felt the only solution here is for the government to get out of the marriage business. Leave "marriage" to the institutions that originated them - churches. That way, each church can decide for itself. Then the government can go about simply creating laws that make sense with regards to rights of "people" and "partners", which can simply be registered with the government. This eliminates all of the objections of those who feel "marriage" is a sacred, religious institution, and gets the government out of many things it should not be involved in.

[Credo]

In the US, I believe it is the role of the gov't to make sure that equal rights accorded to all citizens.

[elgordo38]

Enough already! Equal rights for every person, no matter what your religious beliefs are!

Why is that so hard to understand or implement?

In politics the word EQUAL does not compute or exist. There is the RICH and then the rest of us peons.

[Jingthing]

It's up to the supremes now. I trust they will do the right thing very soon. U.S. marriage equality -- all 50 states.

[Seastallion]

It's up to the supremes now. I trust they will do the right thing very soon. U.S. marriage equality -- all 50 states.

https://youtu.be/NPBkiBbO4_4

Edited June 10, 2015 by Seastallion

[granuaile]

I don't see SCOTUS doing other than affirming marriage equality, but I know it could be otherwise. However, my bet is on marriage equality soon across the USA. For now, every opinion day, I check a live-blogging site for decisions as they emerge. I did the same when DOMA was the issue... It's time for people to be able to marry the person of their choice. Even when I was in a straight marriage (long story) it was not about such things that have never been a factor in secular marriage such as procreation. It was about feelings, which for me at least is the most important aspect of marriage

[Jingthing]

For GLBT Americans, even with a successful civil rights decision on the marriage equality issue, the struggle is not nearly over.

Marriage equality is just one aspect of GLBT civil rights.

There are many other issues about discrimination in other important areas, such as housing and employment.

There are still atrocious anti-gay laws on the books of many U.S. states, especially in the South, that really are as bad and sometimes worse than laws in RUSSIA.

Just as the African American civil rights movement is a process and not yet completed, this is the same.

But yes, the marriage equality EXPECTED victory is a very big deal, and a very symbolic one as well, and the hope is that the other pieces of the equality picture will become easier to do with this part done. Of course, there is a backlash, there always is, that's part of the pendulum of any civil rights struggle.

Contrary to anti-gay rhetoric, GLBT Americans do not want any kind of "special" rights, just the same as other citizens, including the end of all laws on the books that specifically discriminate against this group.

Edited June 10, 2015 by Jingthing

[h90]

I always thought marriage was to procreate and provide a stable environment for children. In western society , these days, civil partnerships provide as much security for 'partners' and children as marriage does. So, marriage has really become symbolic as far as partnership rights are concerned.Who gives a sh*t, except religious followers. Those that follow a specific set of personal beliefs have to adhere to the laws of society that they live in, if they do not wish to, they are democratically allowed to leave and live in a society with different laws. If they do not they are allowed to use their right of free speech to criticise who or what they dislike, as long as they do not encourage law breaking. Similarly, those of gay persusion should not try and impose their views upon a society opposed to those views.

The solution: it is not business of the state to decide on marriage....cut that complete from all laws. Marry you can at your temple/church and it has no legal meaning. The state just offers some partnership contracts (between people no matter what sex) which are approved to be suitable for most people, but beside these few selected you can do any other, whatever you want.

No financial help for "families" but help for children. That he works she cooks is anyway a bit outdated.

[ggt]

OMG...what will they ever do with all those penis cakes they have made in advance for the on-sought of gay marriages?

[Chicog]

Good reply, These people only make up 13% to 16% of the population and want to wipe their ways in the face of the majority. I agree it is a States Rights Issue, and if one does not the laws of the State they live in they have the right to move.

If you want to talk about majorities.....

(CNN) - A new survey finds support for same-sex marriage is higher than ever.

A survey conducted by the Pew Research Center found 57-percent of Americans are in favor of allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry legally.

Thirty-nine percent of respondents said they opposed such a move.

[robertthebruce]

OMG...what will they ever do with all those penis cakes they have made in advance for the on-sought of gay marriages?

Bullocks to that....

[thousandpercent]

Good reply, These people only make up 13% to 16% of the population and want to wipe their ways in the face of the majority. I agree it is a States Rights Issue, and if one does not the laws of the State they live in they have the right to move.

"I agree it is a States Rights Issue, and if one does not the laws of the State they live in they have the right to move."

Yes! If a state's laws do not allow niggers to be treated in public hospitals, then any nigger that doesn't like it can go back to Africa! And if the law allows factories to dump poison in our rivers, causing babies to be born deformed and retarded, any hippie that doesnt like it should go to Africa, too! Laws should never change just because the majority of citizens demand it. That's democracy, and you hate democracy, right?! If 57% of voters want marriage equality and only 39% are opposed, the 57% should just move! Goddamned communists is what they are, thinking that citizens should decide on laws using ballot initiatives and representatives elected by the majority! That's not what you fought the Japs for, is it Grandpa?! No! You fought the Japs so that factories can poison babies and white people wouldn't have to mix with darkies! That's the American Way!

[geriatrickid]

And with regards to States Rights, this issue has a facet involving inter-state law, which does actually bring in the Feds. States are expected to respect the licenses of other states. This is why I can drive through Minnesota with a Michigan driver's license, and why I don't have to re-marry if I move to another state. When inter-state laws conflict, the Federal level comes into play.

That said, I have always felt the only solution here is for the government to get out of the marriage business. Leave "marriage" to the institutions that originated them - churches. That way, each church can decide for itself. Then the government can go about simply creating laws that make sense with regards to rights of "people" and "partners", which can simply be registered with the government. This eliminates all of the objections of those who feel "marriage" is a sacred, religious institution, and gets the government out of many things it should not be involved in.

I believe you are referring to the Full Faith and Credit provision (Art. IV, Sect. I) of the US Constitution.

Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof

Unfortunately you picked a poor example with licensing. There are multiple examples of states not honouring other states licensing decisions. Examples are; Licensing of professions such as lawyers, engineers, doctors, pharmacists. A license for AK does not allow the holder to practice in KY. Back in the good old days, some states allowed mixed marriages. Other states did not, and had legal penalties for a white and "coloured" marriage.

This specific court case is a consolidated appeal in regard to 4 cases. The key case is the appeal of the 6th Circuit Court Ruling that upheld the ban on same sex marriage ban in TN, MI and OH. (I was surprised that a formerly progressive state like Michigan had the ban, but the demographics changed as cities like Dearborn grew in population.)

My understanding is that court heard arguments on 2 key issues:

1. Whether the Constitution requires states “to license a marriage between two people of the same sex.”

2. If the answer to the first one is yes: whether states must “recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out of state.”

I don't think a state is required to license a marriage between two people, whether it be a same sex or other type of marriage. A US state has a lot of power. The problem that arises is that we could see a return to slave era scenarios where some states were abolitionist while others were slave states, It's quite a mess with conflicting rights and I am glad I'm not the one stuck with trying to sort it out.

[SpokaneAl]

Good reply, These people only make up 13% to 16% of the population and want to wipe their ways in the face of the majority. I agree it is a States Rights Issue, and if one does not the laws of the State they live in they have the right to move.

"I agree it is a States Rights Issue, and if one does not the laws of the State they live in they have the right to move."

Yes! If a state's laws do not allow niggers to be treated in public hospitals, then any nigger that doesn't like it can go back to Africa! And if the law allows factories to dump poison in our rivers, causing babies to be born deformed and retarded, any hippie that doesnt like it should go to Africa, too! Laws should never change just because the majority of citizens demand it. That's democracy, and you hate democracy, right?! If 57% of voters want marriage equality and only 39% are opposed, the 57% should just move! Goddamned communists is what they are, thinking that citizens should decide on laws using ballot initiatives and representatives elected by the majority! That's not what you fought the Japs for, is it Grandpa?! No! You fought the Japs so that factories can poison babies and white people wouldn't have to mix with darkies! That's the American Way!

I do enjoy, appreciate and learn a bit in reading the intelligent conversations on the various legal issues surrounding this upcoming decision.

This comment - not so much.

[NeverSure]

And with regards to States Rights, this issue has a facet involving inter-state law, which does actually bring in the Feds. States are expected to respect the licenses of other states. This is why I can drive through Minnesota with a Michigan driver's license, and why I don't have to re-marry if I move to another state. When inter-state laws conflict, the Federal level comes into play.

That's simply not true. The sovereignty of each state makes it impossible. Yes they recognize each other's drivers licenses. But they don't recognize each other's hunting or fishing licenses. Each state owns its own fish and game and the right to regulate hunting of it. If you want to hunt or fish in a state other than yours you have to buy a license for that: At a highly inflated price above that of the locals. The dreaded "dual pricing".

Your state license to carry a gun doesn't extend across state lines. If you plan to take a gun across state lines to go hunting you'll need to know the law about transporting it. You'll also need to know if the particular gun is even legal to possess in the next state, especially in California.

You can't get a license to get married in one state and then go use it in another. You'll need a license to get married in the state you get married.

I could go on but I think the point is made.