In 1993, the Hawaii Supreme Court ruled that a refusal to grant marriage licenses violated the state constitution (18). Even though the court found that the state of Hawaii's constitution had discriminated against homosexuals, which should legalize marriage nationally, presently there have been no same-sex marriage license that have been issued anywhere in the United States. Conversely, an Online US News columnist acknowledges that one state court should not dictate marriage laws for the entire nation: If gay marriages become legal in Hawaii, other states may have to recognize them, as well, because the U.S. Constitution requires each state to grant "full faith and credit" to the acts of other states. But, he argues, many states do not want to recognize same-sex unions, and should not be forced to do so by a few judges in Hawaii. The bill [allowing other states to ban same sex-unions] introduced in congress would preserve the right of the other 49 states to determine their marriage laws.("Pros and Cons of Legalizing Same-Sex Marriage") Although some may believe it would be unfair for Hawaii to begin the process of recognizing same-sex marriage licenses, Article IV, Section One of the United States Constitution avers, "Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records and proceedings of every other state"(Madison et al.). Therefore, regardless of whether or not certain individuals believe it is fair for one state to begin the process of same-sex marriage, the law is the law. Similarly, lawyers specializing in the constitutional and civil rights laws said the legislation could be fought in two ways: either by arguing that same-sex marriages must be allowed to "full faith and credit" clause requiring states to recognize the laws of other states (Roane 7). The Ramirez 3 case is very similar to the ban of interracial marriage, which was declared unconstitutional just a few decades ago by the Supreme Court.
