meaning of 28 U.S.G. § 1738); Halwood v. Cowboy Auto Sales, Inc., 124 N.M. 77, 946 P.2d 1088, 1090 (1997) (same). The government assumes that New Mexico law is the applicable law by which to measure the validity of the marriage, but discusses Navajo law because New Mexico recognizes valid common law marriages from other jurisdictions. Both Esther and Ben Jarvison are subject to Navajo Nation laws regarding marriage and domestic relations. Because domestic relations are considered by the Tribe as being at the core of Navajo sovereignty, In re Francisco, 16 Indian L. Rep. 6113 (Navajo 1989), we conclude that Navajo law is the appropriate law under which to evaluate the validity of the marriage. See Montana, 450 U.S. at 565, 101 S.Ct. 1245; Marris v. Sockey, 170 F.2d 599 (10th Cir.1948) (<HOLDING>); see also Beller v. United States, 221 F.R.D.
holding that a nonmember who files a civil claim in an indian tribal court consents to tribal jurisdiction holding that indian tribes could only exercise criminal jurisdiction over tribal members and not other indians holding that tribal indians domiciled within the territorial limits of an indian nation in indian territory and who consummated a marriage or divorce in accordance with recognized tribal custom before such customs had been superceded by other law were bound by the legal effect given to such customs holding federal government could not prosecute an american indian who on indian territory had murdered another member of his tribe as federal statute excluded such crime from federal criminal jurisdiction in favor of allowing the indians to engage in selfgovernment ie the regulation by themselves of their own domestic affairs the maintenance of order and peace among their own members by the administration of their own laws and customs holding that indian tribes lack tribal jurisdiction over crimes committed by nonmember indians within the tribes reservation