[Zoe Brain]

I think an FMA is the only way to defend DOMA in its current form.

For example, in some states it’s legal to marry at a rather young age, and to first cousins. Other states don’t have to - and don’t - recognise such marriages. The Full Faith and Credit section of the constitution has been deemed to allow this. In this respect, the explicit provisions in DOMA dealing with same-sex marriages are redundant. No state has to recognise another state’s marriages, or birth certificates for that matter, if they can state a compelling interest why they shouldn’t. There’s lots of case law on this.

But because the marriage is valid in state X, even if not in states Y,Z and W, the Feds have to recognise it for constitutional reasons. While much of DOMA is constitutionally defensible, the bit about the Federal Government not recognizing a state’s right to say who is married or not is, well, on the face of it blatantly and obviously against the Constitution as it now stands.

The MA case is pretty compelling from a state’s rights viewpoint, and it would take a fully-fledged Constitutional change to remedy that. Those who wish the principles of DOMA to be enshrined in law have to work *now* to get a constitutional change via an FMA.

[fwdude]

But because the marriage is valid in state X, even if not in states Y,Z and W, the Feds have to recognise it for constitutional reasons.

Why? Congress can make any law explicitly defining marriage, which isn't mentioned in the Constitution. I see no problem with the Federal government doing this, which they did with DOMA. Only a radical activist court could rule otherwise.

While much of DOMA is constitutionally defensible, the bit about the Federal Government not recognizing a state’s right to say who is married or not is, well, on the face of it blatantly and obviously against the Constitution as it now stands.

Who is contending that the Fed is telling any state that they can't proscribe the requirements on who may get married in that state? The Federal government is completely separate in operation from state governments, and there are many examples of Feds not recognizing state laws. If a state prescribes the death penalty for a convict, but the Federal govt. files a separate charge and convicts for life, the convicted won't be executed.