[betty boop]

Given this strong tradition of a state's right to refuse to recognize a marriage validly contracted in another state if that marriage would offend the fundamental public policy of the state, there appears to be no reason for enactment of the Defense of Marriage Act. The states already have the ability to refuse to recognize a same-sex marriage should they so choose.

This is the present legal status quo, Luis. As long as the 14th Amendment is also the law of the land, in any conflict between a state vis-a-vis same-sex marriage contracted in another state, and the way SCOTUS seems to be interpreting the "privileges and immunities" clause these days (i.e., as against state interest), which side do you think would prevail in that fight? Especially since, as Justice Scalia recently pointed out, the present ruling shooting down Texas law seems to put all forms of state prohibitions of marriage (polygamy, incest, underage, consanguinity, etc.) on shaky ground.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"As long as the 14th Amendment is also the law of the land, in any conflict between a state vis-a-vis same-sex marriage contracted in another state, and the way SCOTUS seems to be interpreting the "privileges and immunities" clause these days (i.e., as against state interest), which side do you think would prevail in that fight?"

Betty, I posted legal precedent answering that question, not only that, but the 11th. Amendment clearly takes the SCOTUS out of that scuffle.