That would not be correct. I do hope what follows is not considered unduly political by the moderators because I do not intend it that way: I am writing this solely as a legal rebuttal to the "FF&C" remark above to ensure there issue is not confused.

Drivers licenses are governed by a pact, as discussed elsewhere above. They are NOT recognized state by state through FF&C.

Marriage licenses are only valid in the state that issued them. Marriages are generally recognized state to state "just because" - in other words, if you obtained a license to marry in Texas and then you move to New Jersey (why you would do that is outside the scope of this discussion) then that marriage will be recognized in the new domicile state.

Why?

First, marriage licenses have a history that is not relevant here but they are required solely for the state to know that two people of legal age, unhindered by an earlier marriage or other problem, are going to be married. A ceremony of marriage is still generally required - the license is state permission but doesn't render the marriage operable because marriage is a legal contract. It is actually the contract that is being recognized in the new domicile state, not the permission via license from the former jurisdiction.

The license proves the marriage contract will be legal. The ceremony binds the parties. Why do you think you have to include words of assent?

Second, states do not have the time, energy, inclination, or resources to look into the validity of marriages from other jurisdictions. If you tell them that you are legally married then you are legally married. If someone wants to object then the authorities and a court of competent jurisdiction can become involved. Otherwise, nobody makes an issue out of it, including the Federal government and the IRS.

Think about it - if you know anything about divorce you know a Nevada married couple can file for divorce in Oregon. All they do is in the petition they identify the original state and date of the marriage. The divorce court doesn't make an issue out of it - it's just a question of terminating a contract made in another state.

But then, third case, this also explains the current political debate over marriages between people of the same gender. If North Carolina refuses to recognize a homosexual couple's marriage in California (I am just naming states randomly; I have no idea of what their current statutes are*) then they are not married when they move to that jurisdiction until the issue gets adjudicated.

*How WAS THAT RESOLVED in the Supreme Court, regardless of state statutes? Whether you agree or disagree that is NOT the point. Bring this to the Lounge and see if the moderators want to allow the discussion there. This is TRULY not written to argue this point but to ensure that the legal question of Full Faith and Credit is not misconstrued when it comes to CHL reciprocity. FF&C does not apply or we would never have to have this discussion. The Justices used Due Process and Equal Protection arguments (think 14th Amendment) to rule that same sex marriages are lawful and must be recognized.

I apologize if the moderators pull this and give me a demerit. It is intended strictly as a discussion about the law and how and why various licenses are not recognized or are indeed recognized state by state. The ultimate Second Amendment legal and political issue is if same sex marriages are recognized nationally by the Supreme Court using the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution then why isn't the same standard applicable to concealed handgun licenses?

With apologies in advance if this violates the Forum rules but, actually, if it doesn't, I hope folks will take the time to use this thought process to ask that last question of their own politicians.