BOSTON - The Massachusetts high court decision endorsing gay marriage raises a host of complex legal questions, and one of the biggest is this: If one state allows same-sex marriages, must other states recognize them?
Experts say it could take years for lawsuits challenging gay marriage to wend their way through state and federal courts before ultimately ending up at the U.S. Supreme Court. Much of the litigation probably will center on the ''full faith and credit'' clause of the U.S. Constitution, which says states must accept other states' judicial proceedings.
''People in very short order will move back to Alabama and Tennessee and demand that marriages will be recognized,'' said Gary Bauer, president of American Values, a conservative group. ''At that point, you have got a constitutional crisis.''
Experts, however, generally believe the ''full faith and credit'' argument favors opponents of gay marriage. What little interpretation the U.S. Supreme Court has given indicates the clause applies to legal judgments in ''adversarial proceedings'' such as lawsuits, and not such things as a marriage license.
Strangely, since divorce is an adversarial proceeding, the Massachusetts divorce of a gay couple could be recognized in other states more easily than their marriage.
In the hours after the Massachusetts decision was released, Gov. Mitt Romney and several other opponents of gay marriage focused on a state constitutional amendment as the best tool to reclaim marriage as a heterosexual-only institution.
That option, however, raises even more legal questions, because the earliest voters can amend the state's constitution is 2006, two years or more after the time the high court has ordered a gay marriage law to be on the books.
What will happen to gay married couples if voters later decide to revoke the right to wed? Some legal experts and gay-rights activists say that Tuesday's ruling appears to suggest that gay couples should get nothing less than marriage.
Other experts and Romney say the ruling is ambiguous enough that legislators could satisfy the court by approving a rough equivalent to marriage, such as the ''civil unions'' that Vermont offers.
''I believe their decision indicates that a provision which provides that benefits, obligations, rights and responsibilities which are consistent with marriage but perhaps could be called by a different name would be in conformity with their decision,'' Romney said. ''Under that opinion, I believe a civil union-type provision would be sufficient.''
Be the first to comment on this article!