If DOMA is struck down, the states need to have the ability to negotiate disbursement of federal benefits as they apply to same-sex couples.
Negotiate what and with whom? You are eligible or you are not and what incentive would the states have to limit such eligibility. It costs them nothing. It will just put more pressure on other states to treat their residents the same thus pushing more states into gay marriage.
I don't know if you understand how SS and Medicare work, but you don't have to go thru a state intermediary now to get benefits. You go to a federal office and apply. The states have no real role--until now with the redefinition of marriage.
This issue is no different than the marijuana one. Just because one state defies the federal government and agrees to let people openly purchase and use marijuana does not require another state to honor the same issue, even though they oppoose the use of marijuana.
It is like comparing apples to organges. There is no similarity between violating a federal law on drug use and the federal government not recognizing gay marriage for the purpose of allocating federal benefits and adherence to existing tax law, e.e., filing a joint federal income tax return.
This whole issue is about choices. Same-sex couples choose to create their lives together, just as heterosexual couples do. If that same same-sex couple chooses to relocate to a state that does not support same-sex marriage or same-sex access to benefits, that's a consequence of the choice they made to move.
It is also a consequence every taxpayer in America must bear if we add more people to the SS and Medicare rolls and allow additional people to collect federal pension survivor benefits. You seem to want to ignore the real costs of overruling DOMA.
We often hear, on FR, that choices have consequences and these issues that you are so passionate about are the consequences of the choices these people have made. If you believe otherwise, then you believe that the government exists to solve every issue that exists. And, some issues just end up sucking for those that don't fit within the mainstream.
You want government, in this case SCOTUS, to overrule state referenda on the issue and a law that was passed overwhelmingly in Congress.
You seemed to have evolved on the issue yourself. From your personal page:
"4. DOMA!! A marriage is between a man and a woman; NOT between John and Larry or Joan and Mary. I believe that Judeo-Christian values need to be re-introduced in our society and practiced in the schools! The Pledge of Allegiance and daily school prayers strengthened our society and did not harm anyone!"
You are missing the point. States will not define marriage with respect to federal benefits, they don't have that right. States that allow same-sex marriage should have the ability to negotiate the disbursement of federal benefits to members of a same-sex marriage. That means whether members of same-sex couples are entitled to draw those benefits and at what amounts and under what circumstances. That's all. The states, themselves, do not and should not have the power to determine how federal funds are disbursed, but, if the states allow same-sex marriage, then they should be able to negotiate with the federal government on whether, when, how, how much and under what circumstances those funds are disbursed to those couples.
Every other comment you made is addressed in that response, except for the last one. I haven't evolved on this issue at all. I still believe the same things as I have on my personal page (interesting that I will post my thoughts there, but you haven't created one, yet). My remarks on this issue simply reflect the fact that conservatives are going to be steamrollered on this issue (as in every other one) because we don't give a rat's ass about standing up en masse and putting a stop to it. And, since we don't care enough to fight back to regain control of an out-of-control government, then, at least, I'm going to put my two cents worth in about how these issues should be controlled and administered.