so, since the June 2013 Supreme Court rulings on homosexual marriage, there have been a number of federal judges who have ruled that it is unconstitutional for states to define marriage in the traditional manner.
I’m sure the activists filed all these lawsuits to get the Supreme Court to rule that there is a constitutional right to homosexual marriage. Last year’s.cases did not arrive at that conclusion.
It would appear the strategy is having a federal district court judge rule the homosexual marriage ban unconstitutional thereby removing a state’s public policy exception to the full faith and credit clause pertaining to out-of-state homosexual marriage certificates from other states.
I thought SCOTUS ruled this a state matter when it came to DOMA, federal judges are not states.
Ignore it.
You might try digging up the 2001 interview on 365gay.com of Evan Wolfson, lead litigator of Lambda Legal at the time in the James Dale case (which they lost: Boy Scouts of America, New Jersey), in which Wolfson laid out very plainly the Gayspiracy agenda to attack marriage using an Article IV Full Faith and Credit Clause argument.
At that time, homosexual "marriage" </cant> was nowhere legal, so a FFC attack was moot. Once the queers rolled the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (improperly influencing their Chief Justice, working through Bay Area lesbian attorneys), though, the door was open.
Attacking marriage and destroying it is key -- marriage is the overarching "heteronormal" institution of life. It shines a powerful searchlight on their essential deviancy, and they can't handle that.
This is the end game ..... of their strategy. We need to work on the counter campaign.
Forum-shopping judges is their standard, preferred strategy-within-a-strategy. They did it twice in Texas, in 1981 and again in Lawrence (2003).