This eminently readable article articulates the conflict of laws issues raised by same-sex marriage. Included are discussions of the obligations of states to respect other states' laws or judgments, and whether DOMA violates the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

The Marriage Protection Act of 2004 (MPA), or House Bill 3313, would strip the federal courts of jurisdiction over same-sex marriage cases. This article provides some history of the MPA. It examines the federal courts’ powers of judicial review, and Congress’s power over the courts. It concludes that attempts to curtail judicial review through the MPA would be unconstitutional. Equal protection, full faith and credit, and due process analyses are all discussed.

This author examines some issues that arise under various state “defense of marriage” laws. He identifies a number of issues that aren’t generally covered by those laws, such as persons migrating to the state, individuals attempting to avoid obligations incurred in other states, and litigation related to children of same-sex marriages who are now residing in the state. A number of attempts to deal with those situations, either by denying “contractual rights” to same-sex couples, by refusing to enforce judgments from other states related to same-sex unions, or by “blanket nonrecognition,” are most likely unconstitutional, because they either violate the Equal Protection or Full Faith and Credit clauses of the U.S. Constitution.

Massachusetts General Law chapter 207, section 11, prohibits the issuance of marriage licenses to non-resident couples who reside in states where their marriages would be void. This article analyzes this “marriage evasion statute” as it applies to same-sex couples. It concludes that the statue violates the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the United States Constitution.

The author begins with a brief discussion of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, and the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution, and finds that neither is dispositive on the issue of whether a same-sex marriage in one state must be recognized in another. He then analyzes the New York state case In re May’s Estate [148 N.E.2d 4 (N.Y. 1953)] to see whether a choice-of-law argument might help proponents of same-sex marriage to advance their claims. While the decision in May’s Estate would seem to do so, the author finds the case to have been improperly decided. He concludes, however, that the Equal Protection, Due Process, and Establishment Clauses of the U.S. Constitution would require a state to recognize same-sex marriages performed in another state.