Copyright (c) 2008 All rights reserved. http://works.bepress.com/rhonda_wasserman Recent documents in Rhonda Wasserman en-us Sat, 04 Oct 2008 04:34:17 PDT 3600 http://works.bepress.com/rhonda_wasserman/4 http://works.bepress.com/rhonda_wasserman/4 Thu, 02 Oct 2008 07:44:06 PDT Parents and their biological children routinely cross state borders safe in the assumption that the parent-child relationship will be recognized wherever they go. The central issue raised in this Article is whether the law guarantees parents and their adopted children the same security if the parents are gay. This question is part of a broader debate about the obligation of states to recognize changes in family status effected under the laws of other states, such as same-sex marriages and migratory divorces. The debate is divisive because it pits the family against the state; one state against another; and the needs of the federal union against the interests of individual states. This rancorous debate is moderated by the Full Faith and Credit Clause. The Article explains why the Clause imposes a more rigorous obligation on states to recognize judgments, such as adoption decrees and divorces, than marriages and laws. The Article also unpacks and refutes the rationales submitted by the state of Oklahoma, which enacted a statute barring recognition of adoptions by same-sex couples, and Professor Lynn Wardle, who argued that "nonrecognition of lesbigay adoption decrees would be proper and permissible." The Article concludes that the Full Faith and Credit Clause commands interstate recognition of sister state adoption decrees regardless of the sexual orientation of the adoptive parents. Rhonda Wasserman Practice and Procedure Conflict of Laws adoption law; sexual orientation