A 1996 federal law says the states are not obliged to recognize lawful same-sex unions from other states, and there is no nationwide federal court order reversing that nor is there likely to be. The 1996 DOMA approved overwhelmingly by Congress and signed by Clinton also contained the language:
"In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word “marriage” means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word “spouse” refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife."
The Federal government needs a definition of marriage to administer its programs and benefits, e.g., Social Security, Medicare, pensions, and survivor benefits. If DOMA is challenged in the courts and overturned, there will a significant impact on federal programs, more than likely increasing expenditures and costs. There needs to be a detalied study on the financial impact of same sex marriage on government programs.
There needs to be a study of the effects of the adoption of children by same-sex couples or any other aspect of homosexual behavior since 1972. But there are no real studies. The very idea is resisted in the mental health community. as is pointed out in Destructive Trends in Mental health: The well-intentioned Path to Harm by Nicholas Cummings and Rogers Wright. The "normality" of homosexual behavir has become dogma-- n fallow field.
So the MA SJC violated federal law in the Goodridge decision.
I am not in favor of changing the Constitution for intransigent causes, but the government defining marriage encroaches on the 1st Amendment as Marriage was a sacrament in the Catholic Church centuries before there was a United States of America. Gay advocates have scoffed at the idea that they would challenge the 503 c status of the church. I was born at night . But not last night.