Talk:Full Faith and Credit Clause

message: The discussion of DOMA is somewhat irrelevant because the Full Faith and Credit Clause has NEVER been used to validate an out-of-state marriage of any kind.  States recognise each other's marriages under their own rules of comity and cofnlict of laws.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.144.254.117 (talk) 18:23, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: FFC Never Used to Validate Out of State Marriage

message: There is some confusion between the terms "marriage licence" and "marriage certificate".  NO jurisdiction recognises a marriage LICENCE from another jurisdiction.  ALL jurisdictions worldwide recognise MOST marriage CERTIFICATES.
In most US states, the marriage licence and the marriage certificate are printed on the same sheet of paper - which explains why some people think they are the same thing.  They are, in fact, two legally distinct documents, despite appearing to be a single document.
A marriage LICENCE is proof that a couple meet the requirements OF THE JURISDICTION THAT ISSUES THE LICENCE to marry IN THAT JURISDICTION.  Example:  A couple who live in California get a California marriage licence.  That means they meet California requirements to get married in California.  It does NOT mean they meet Nevada requirements to get married in Nevada.  Only Nevada can issue a marriage licence to people who want to get married in Nevada; only Maryland can issue a marriage licence that is valid in Maryland; and so on.
A marriage CERTIFICATE is proof that a couple are married.  Marriage CERTIFICATES are valid anywhere in the world (unless the marriage is illegal in the forum jurisdiction) because they prove that you ARE married.
A marriage LICENCE, on the other hand, is only valid in the jurisdiction that issues it - and then, only for a limited period of time; usually 30 days.  If you do not get married within 30 days of getting the marriage licence, it is automatically voided.  A marriage CERTIFICATE, on the other hand, never expires.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.144.254.117 (talk) 18:19, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Marriage Licence cf. Mariage Certificate

message: I don't think the article [is] non-neutral, as the tag says. It could use additional details about the other applications (and nonapplications) of the clause, but I don't think this make the article slanted a particular POV. Triangular 21:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Non-neutral or not

message: For the layman, this article could use a section on licenses, such as a license to drive, and why they are or are not covered under this clause.  Anybody?  JonathanFreed 16:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Qzekrom (she/her • talk) 23:55, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Licenses

message: Where the heck is the actual excerpt of the Full Faith and Credit Clause from the Constitution? I just figured it would be in quotes at the top of the page so that it may be referred to throughout the rest of the article. Thank you. Yankhill (talk) 00:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Excerpt

message: The phrase "full faith and credit" appears in the Congressional Record with respect to FDIC-insured deposits.  This is described on fdic.gov . I am not sure it appears with respect to treasury debt or other debts.
Spope3 (talk) 21:41, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  FDIC 

message: The example of the ruling by Judge Black in the Ohio death certificate case does not belong in this article.  His ruling was based upon the Windsor ruling of SCOTUS and on 14th Amendment protections.  He did not base his ruling on the Full Faith and Credit Clause.  pdf link to judge's ruling in case  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.54.120.80 (talk) 17:04, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed removal of example in Family Law section. 

message: This is an informative and clear article. One complication, however, is that the US is not the only country with a full faith and credit clause in its Constitution.  The Australian Constitution at Section 118 has a similar clause.  Solution?  Perhaps rename this article "Full faith and credit clause (USA)", and then create another page "Full faith and credit clause (Australia)"?  That would seem to be the simplest solution. The more complex solution would be a major re-write of the existing article, with an introduction stating that in any federation one needs a constitutional means whereby the laws of individual components will be recognized, indicating how a "good faith and credit clause" serves that purpose, and then giving the US and Australia as examples.  But that seems a lot of work and additionally would disturb an otherwise well written article. I would favour the first approach. Any comments? Sue2016 (talk) 18:06, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a note to the top of the page redirecting people to the Australian version. Orthogonal1 (talk) 23:08, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Complication