Gay marriage, full faith and credit clause, and the rights of seventeen year olds in Texas v. elsewhere?
In the case of Dred Scott, racism prevailed. It was declared that because Dred was of African descent, the Constitution never intended him to be a citizen, and that, therefore, he did not have the authority to take his master to court. This verdict was irrespective of free states. However, in the full faith and credit clause, it is stated that provinces are to respect the laws and undertakings of others. Since it was declared that free states did not have the authority to ban slavery to begin with, this became a problem.
A similar issue can be seen when certain territories provide interracial marriage, while it is prohibited elsewhere. If a mixed couple is wed and then moves to an alternate location where mixed coupling is not an option, will that geographic area continue to view Mr. and Mrs. Smith as legally together? We could even take it a step further and relate the matter to homosexual relationships at present day. If a gay man and man or woman and woman unite where it is condoned, but then move to where it is not, does their contract temporarily dissolve? Are the benefits of marriage, such as those relating to taxes, withheld? All of this must be taken into perspective when considering the above hypothetical.
Get at me. Reference as many laws as possible.