See Wisconsin v. Pelican Insurance Co., 127 U.S. 265; Huntington v. Attrill, 146 U.S. 657; Finney v. Guy, 189 U.S. 335; see also Clarke v. Clarke, 178 U.S. 186; Olmsted v. Olmsted, 216 U.S. 386; Hood v. McGehee, 237 U.S. 611; cf. Gasquet v. Fenner, 247 U.S. 16.
But aside from that, your position is that the FF&CC does force another state's laws on another and so you're sitting here arguing about why DOMA is needed when it's clearly unconstitutional by your own interpretation.
LOL. Progressive much? Golly gee, I guess I'm off to grow me some weed here in Utah since Washington says they can. According to you, I wont be arrested and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. < rolls eyes >
Liberals think that - which is why DOMA was needed.
No, these court cases say that.
See Wisconsin v. Pelican Insurance Co., 127 U.S. 265; Huntington v. Attrill, 146 U.S. 657; Finney v. Guy, 189 U.S. 335; see also Clarke v. Clarke, 178 U.S. 186; Olmsted v. Olmsted, 216 U.S. 386; Hood v. McGehee, 237 U.S. 611; cf. Gasquet v. Fenner, 247 U.S. 16.
I didn't say liberals were correct in thinking that the full faith and credit clause requires a state to substitute for its own laws the conflicting law of another state - I just said they thought so.
But aside from that, your position is that the FF&CC does force another state's laws on another
Where did I say that?
and so you're sitting here arguing about why DOMA is needed
"Needed" was too strong - let's make that "extra assurance."