Wayne Allard: “the editorial states: Nonetheless, it is now unlikely that the states will be able simply to do as they wish on the…”

“the editorial states: Nonetheless, it is now unlikely that the states will be able simply to do as they wish on the question of marriage. Under the Massachusetts Constitution, no amendment in response to the supreme judicial court's decision will be possible until 2006, and in the meantime there is no stopping same-sex nuptials, of which there have been thousands so far, including many from out of state. It is only a matter of time before some same-sex couples who have returned home file lawsuits pressing their states to recognize their unions. A basis for their claim will be the federal Constitution's requirement that states give ``full faith and credit'' to other states' judicial proceedings. The federal Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 offers an authoritative interpretation of the ``full faith and credit'' clause designed to prevent the interstate transmission of same-sex marriage. But the Supreme Court has repeatedly told Congress that it lacks the power to do that, and there is no reason to think that the Court would change its mind. The odds are strong, then, that same-sex marriage will travel via the federal courts to other states. There also remains a possibility that the Supreme Court itself might simply strike down the traditional definition of marriage.”