“Fact is this is a STATE issue. What is there to discuss?????”
Whether a state that DOES NOT recognize or allow a homosexual union/marriage in their juridiction should have to recognize one done in another state?
Hence the necessity of DOMA. Because of “full faith and credit” in the COTUS, it makes it an important issue that goes beyong a state’s borders.
What good is it for one state to forbid or not recognize a homosexual union IF a “couple” can cross state lines to get recognized elsewhere and then come back home?
Personnally, I don’t think ANY state should be able to have homosexual marriage that confers the same benefits/rights that hetereosexual marriage does for tax and other reasons.
Our states going to have to institute “reciprocity” agreements between states on all marriages because of the homosexuals? I am afraid so. Maybe we need to do so. I have never liked “Vegas” marriages anyway. It is a problem though.
DOMA needs to stand to prevent chaos.
DOMA shouldn’t be necessary. The Full Faith and Credit Clause should not require a state to recognize contrary legislation from another state. Even the gay marriage advocates aren’t really trying that tactic, though it might actually work with a liberal enough judiciary. They are proceeding under equal protection and due process arguments, which will invalidate DOMA, if successful.
I am trying to approach this from a legal and constitional framework. Marriage (like drivers licenses) is regulated by the states.
The liberals now use the 14th Amendment to justify everything under the sun, even though its only intent was to confer the same rights to newly freed slaves as everyone else.