What's your point?
The SC hasn't ruled if the full faith and credit clause overrides the DOMA. I would say it doesn't, because I don't think a state sponsored marriage is a right, and clearly just because one state gives you benifits, it doesn't mean another one needs to.
And you didn't read my arguement very carefully. I said that I think Congress should act, and amend the Constitution if necessary, if the court strikes DOMA down, or if they find the 'right' to gay marriage in the Constitution, but not before. Then, I said that I'd perfer to amend the Constitution to explicitly give that power to the states, but that I'd vote for an outright ban if there was no other viable alternative.
There is more to just the “full faith and credit” part of that section...
Pay attention to the words in red:
Article. IV.Section. 1. Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
This is just the trouble with a lot of these issues... nobody bothers to read the whole thing...
The court has no jurisdiction, it is a Constitutional function of Congress, not the courts...
Now, I do favor a strict wording (also to exclude civil unions, domestic partners, etc., etc., ad nausea) as a Constitutional Amendment.