“Just now I am reading ‘The Constitution of the United States; Its Sources and Application’ by Thomas James Norton, first published in 1922, this edition from the early 50s. The author takes the Constitution virtually line by line and explains what is in it, why it’s there, and how its provisions have been interpreted by the courts. About the Full Faith and Credit clause, he notes this (p. 156):
Full faith and credit was held by the Supreme Court of the United States (1903) not to have been denied by the courts of Massachusetts in permitting the first wife of a man, rather than the second, to administer his estate upon his death, as the law of Massachusetts made invalid in the State a divorce which he went to South Dakota to procure. Full faith and credit did not require that a decree of divorce granted in South Dakota should be respected and made operative against the public policy of Massachusetts.
In other words, for a full century the law has held that in such intimate matters as family, marriage, and divorce, in contrast to, for example, business debts or public contracts, no state may use full faith and credit to impose its beliefs and policies on another. Those who promote the FMA should be asked to explain themselves in light of this fact.” Actually, divorces might in some circumstances be held to be binding across state borders. But marriages? Never. The whole premise of the Federal Marriage Amendment – that the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution mandates that marriage in one state be applicable in every other state – is a lie. But they keep on telling it.
The Dish 