Full Faith and Credit Clause

I think the most dominant subject that comes to mind involving the Full Faith and character article of the U. S. organization centers around same- depend on marriages. The argument in this issue centers around whether a mirthful couple who gets married in Massachusetts would/should be recognized as legally married in some(prenominal) early(a) raise they movement to. I am sure the framers of the Constitution could never defecate imagined that some(prenominal) 200+ years later, that the original intent of Article IV role 1 of the Constitution, the Full Faith and credit entry Clause, could possibly undergo the testing it has had to endure in recent years.The word marriage means nurture a legal union between maven man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word spouse refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife. The Constitution specifically delineates that no State shall be required to earn effect to any public act, record, or judicial p roceeding of any otherwise State respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of any other State, or any discipline or claim arising from such relationship.If same-sex marriages have become legally acceptable in some states, and then those couples should venerate those benefits in the states in which they are considered to be legal. States are granted the right to determine those laws that have effect on their deliver citizens, and, should a ethereal married couple wish to reside in a state where same-sex marriages are not legal by law in that state, then they must accept the law in that state as rachis on them. Any state that chooses to not recognize same-sex marriages within their own constitution certainly has that right under the Full Faith and Credit Clause.Until at such time someone finds a way to argufy the extremeity of the Clause, fearless couples will have to resign themselves being able to work their cho sen lifestyle, but without the benefits of such union in states where it is deemed illegal. In further support of this issue, I believe that the Defense Of Marriage Act (DOMA) (1996) is unconstitutional on its face. DOMA violates principles of equal protection and due process. A strong strip can also be made that DOMA abuses the Full Faith and Credit Clause and contravenes fundamental principles of federalism.Since there are relatively similar laws enacted in all 50 states, with only small differences between most of them, I see no reason that the Full Faith and Credit Clause should be held applicable to the issue of same-sex marriages. I find it difficult to imagine how the Court could find excluding same-sex couples from the definition of marriage unconstitutional without creating a constitutional requirement that same-sex couples be allowed to marry. Therefore, I believe that the Constitution guarantees each and every one of us the right to choose to marry the one we love.The c oncomitant that they are of the same sex should not deprive those individuals of the same rights and privileges of other citizens merely because it violates some individuals morals or beliefs. Since the Constitution itself does not genuinely delineate the definition of marriage, I believe that all attempts that deprive gay people certain rights not otherwise deprived of other individuals violates the impression of the Constitution, and abuses the Full Faith and Credit Clause therein.