Section one of Article four of the United States Constitution is known as the Full Faith and Credit clause. This section has traditionally been interpreted as requiring the reciprocal acknowledgement of each state's actions by the other states. It was primarily intended to provide for the continuity between states and enforcement across state lines of non-federal laws, civil claims and court rulings. Without this clause, enforcement of state-to-state extradition, portability of court orders, nationwide recognition of legal status, out-of-state taxation, spousal and child support, and the collection of fees and fines would all be impossible without separate federal action, or a similar action by the other states.

"Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof." [1]

The clause has been noted for its application involving orders of protection, for which the clause was expounded upon by the Violence Against Women Act class="external">[1, child support, for which the enforcement of the clause was spelled out in the Federal Full Faith and Credit for Child Support Act[1], and its possible application to same-sex marriage, civil union and domestic partnership laws and cases[1], as well as the controversial Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment. The clause has been the chief constitutional basis for the repeated attacks on the DOMA.

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia stated in his dissenting opinion to the landmark Lawrence v. Texas decision, that he feared application of the full faith and credit clause to the majority’s decision in that case might destroy "the structure . . . that has permitted a distinction to be made between heterosexual and homosexual unions."[1] If true, this could potentially negate the DOMA and create a legal loophole allowing same-sex marriages and obliging all other states to recognize them.

Likewise, the Massachusetts Supreme Court case of Goodridge v. Department of Health is being eyed by observers on both sides of the issue because of similar concerns stemming from this clause. class="external">[2class="external">[1

Supporters of the DOMA, however, have claimed that the clause could very well be used to defend the law. [1] They say that the clause’s explicit language spelling out the role of Congress is precisely what makes the law Constitutional, without the further need for the Federal Marriage Amendment. They point out that Congress has made several laws, including those on firearms controls and safety standards, employment discrimination, disability, and rights to unionization, and environmental protection, which have all withstood Constitutional attacks on the basis of full faith and credit.

External Links

A guide to Full Faith and Credit concerns in the Mid-Atlantic Region