[SwankyC]

Hold on a second.

You just sat there and told me that libtards believe the FF&CC doesnt require a state to substitute its own laws the conflicting law of another state.

And then you said that DOMA was needed to protect against something liberals dont even believe in. LMAO! Yea, you really just cleared it all up for me. I guess yer kickin and fussin and being a little incoherent.

[JustSayNoToNannies]

The concern was that otherwise the Full Faith and Credit Clause would be interpreted to mean that all states had to recognize gay 'marriages' performed in states that allowed it. Did you really not know that?

Sorry, the full faith and credit clause doesnt require a state to substitute its own laws the conflicting law of another state. Did you really think that?

Liberals think that

You just sat there and told me that libtards believe the FF&CC doesnt require a state to substitute its own laws the conflicting law of another state.

Wrong - you missed the obvious "think that" parallelism of "Did you really think that?" and "Liberals think that". What liberals think is what you asked me if I think: that the full faith and credit clause requires a state to substitute for its own laws the conflicting law of another state.