Any state which has, by plebiscite, legislation, or constitutional amendment barred two men or two women from simulating marriage is on perfectly firm ground in resisting the edicts of Article III courts established by Congress, since those courts are not lawmaking bodies.
CONGRESS has the Article IV §1 power to require recognition of such arrangements contracted in States where they are legal (and by “legal”, I do not mean ordered by a court in contravention of State law). “Legal” in this context means pursuant to a bill passed by a State legislature and signed by the governor in the ordinary way.
Resisting the Federal courts in this way is not nullification, because no Federal law is being nullified. Should Congress pass a bill and the President sign it into law under the Full Faith and Credit clause requiring Oklahoma to recognize unions contracted in New York, and Oklahoma resist, THAT would be nullification.
“Resisting the Federal courts in this way is not nullification, because no Federal law is being nullified. Should Congress pass a bill and the President sign it into law under the Full Faith and Credit clause requiring Oklahoma to recognize unions contracted in New York, and Oklahoma resist, THAT would be nullification.”
It is one of many curiosities about the Standing of the Federal ‘court’ in this case. Not the least of which the which the absence of law Federal in nature Constitutional or legislative.
How is it that they can demand anything of our States where no law authorizing said action has ever existed? Their leftist appointed subordinates have been demanding a service be given where no law authorizes said service at all.
As for Congressional Contract Power, there is nothing prohibiting two men or women from forming any sort of contract. People sign contracts all the time frequently involving many parties of various sexes. Marriage is not a contractual creation of the state nor is the State’s licence a contractual agreement.
Insolently even to the exist that the legal concept of marriage in the State is a specific application of a specific kind of contract, to allow the Federal court to redefine that sort of contract would necessarily extend their legislative power over all other contracts by the exact same means of claiming violation of an unwritten and apparently universally applicable constitutional clause.