you are wrong as a matter of law.
the 1996 Doma has already fallen thanks to mass.
This is 100% a federal issue since immigration is a federal issue and the homosexual marriages of other countries can be used for spousal visas without a federal constitutional amendment.
the ONLY way to keep this institution protected against left wing revsionism is with a constititutional amendment.
Your analysis is flawed because ANY federal judge can dow WHATEVER they want as past rulings have been demonstrated. Don't forget one states supreme court has already ruled their state amendment was "unconstitutional".
DOMA was not intended to interfere with individual states, merely to protect others from having to recognize same sex marriages pursuant to Article IV.
This is 100% a federal issue since immigration is a federal issue and the homosexual marriages of other countries can be used for spousal visas without a federal constitutional amendment.
Not so. It is spelled out in Section 7 of DOMA.
Your analysis is flawed because ANY federal judge can dow WHATEVER they want as past rulings have been demonstrated. Don't forget one states supreme court has already ruled their state amendment was "unconstitutional".
Actually more than one has spoken, and each state has responded in kind. A recent Georgia law was struck down as unconstitutional, and in fact it was. But the good people of Georgia can easily rectify the issue. Massachusetts is handling it with a constitutional convention. Hawaii did the same. Vermont and Connecticut have same sex unions. I'm not interested in what other states do. I only want my state protected. If a judge strikes a law down, especially here in the South, no appeals court is going to agree with it, and even if it did, the current makeup of the USSC will likely ensure that DOMA prevails. There is a world of difference between a state court and a federal court. I am only concerned with a federal court.