Coming back to Stephen, who's picked up the gay marriage thread again, I want to say first of all that this whole argument that the "full faith and credit" clause will mean that if a gay marriage is recognized in Massachusetts, it will have to be recognized in Utah, is totally off-base, in my view. 

Here's the example I always use to refute that.  Nevada allows prostitution.  So, one could enter into a prostitution contract in Nevada and, hypothetically, seek to enforce it in Utah, were the "full faith and credit" clause deemed to work this way.  Yet the ability of a prostitution contract to be enforced in Utah, on any grounds, isn't considered to be likely or really even possible-- if it were, in fact, wouldn't we have an amendment to the Constitution specifying that prostitution contracts are not enforceable in states not recognizing prostitution as a legal activity? 

I can understand where some of the initial concern about "full faith and credit" and what that would do, were gay marriage legalized, came from.  But frankly, I think it's wheeled out more as a plain, old canard by those who just want to stop gay marriage, full stop, for other reasons (like, say, they're religious conservatives who see the legal recognition of gay marriage or civil unions anywhere as a precursor to the downfall of Western civilization as we know it-- and yes, before anyone says it, I know I'm being a little hyperbolic for illustration and vivid description purposes, but I bet Rick Santorum would regard it as such).

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to