My preferred constitutional amendment would say, in essence, that
- the Federal government is not required to recognize or give effect to any jurisdiction's laws regarding marriage which violate its public policy, and
- the full faith and credit clause shall not be construed to require that any state recognize or give effect to any other jurisdiction's laws regarding marriage which are in violation of the state's public policy.
In each case, I would leave it to the current legislature to declare that policy, rather than trying to declare it in an amendment to the Consitution, to be fixed (nearly) permanently. That approach can lead to disaster, as we saw with the 18th Amendment.
This alternative would leave each state free to act as it sees fit, but would also permit the Federal government and each state to implement its policies without concern about a claim that a union recognized in another state is binding on them.
Granted, much of this is already encompassed in the Federal Defense of Marriage Act. But that is only legislation; it does nothing to address the FFC clause issue (as to the states) or the other potential constitutional challenges, primarily due process arguments, as to the Federal government.
6:24:23 AM 
|
