Gay Marriage Ban Constitutional?

In the realm of marital interpretation, my focus lies on how the Court and courts have deciphered this clause. Allow me to elucidate: within areas where states possess sole jurisdiction, neither federal courts nor other states can overturn a judicial order. In essence, if the facts and laws of a case are interpreted so distinctly by a federal court or another state court that the resulting outcome would differ, it cannot be altered due to the exclusive jurisdiction vested in the court that rendered the decision.

Marriage serves as a prime example of such a contract or covenant. States hold exclusive jurisdiction over marriage. By the authority bestowed upon me by the state of (insert your state here), I now declare you husband and wife. Or, if you reside in a state that sanctions same-sex marriage: I declare you man and man/woman and woman. Thus, the state’s judicial agent or officer, typically a religious minister or justice of the peace, confirms the validity of this deeply sacred contract. In legal terms, what they are stating is that the state now recognizes this covenant as valid.

Returning to the concept of Full Faith and Credit, no state possesses the power to nullify the decision of another state when exclusive jurisdiction is involved. It is important to remember that the recognition or lack thereof of a particular contract by a state’s constitution holds no weight, as the US Supreme Court serves as the ultimate authority. The only potential legal challenge to a contract, settlement, or marriage validated judicially in another state would involve a claim of lack of due process – asserting that one or both parties lacked the capacity, or were deceived or coerced into the contract, settlement, or marriage.

So, what should we make of these prohibitions on same-sex marriage? Our judicial officers – every judge in Michigan – have pledged to uphold the Constitution faithfully, meaning the Federal Constitution, which is deemed the law of the land. However, in Michigan, judges have determined that a Michigan Constitutional Amendment supersedes the Full Faith and Credit Clause. This is a blatant violation of the law! Michigan has no authority to rule that an individual loses their marital status simply by residing in Michigan instead of Vermont, where their marriage was legally established.

This appears to be a clear-cut case. However, we must bear in mind that the judicial branch in Michigan, like in every state, is highly politicized. Consequently, our judges lack the courage to defy the wishes of their constituents by enforcing the law of the land. Perhaps implementing term limits would rectify this situation? All I know is that if America is truly opposed to same-sex marriage, they should seek to amend the Federal Constitution accordingly. Otherwise, as long as one state within the union recognizes same-sex marriage, all states are obligated, by virtue of the Full Faith and Credit Clause, to also acknowledge same-sex marriage.