What's even funnier is that not having bothered to do a minute of research on this, they chose instead to listen to the doom and gloom brigade, and are ready to declare defeat, in spite of the fact that States already posses the right not to honor the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the US Constitution when it comes to marriages.
"There are three commonly recognized categories of marriages contracted in another state that will not be recognized in the forum state. First, marriages that are contracted by domiciliaries of the forum state in another state for the express purpose of evading the law of the forum state are deemed invalid. E.g., Loughran v. Loughran, 292 U.S. 216 (1934) (marriage entered into in Florida, in violation of D.C. prohibition against remarriage within certain amount of time after prior divorce, invalid in D.C.); Barbosa-Johnson v. Johnson, 174 Ariz. 567, 851 P.2d 866 (Ct. App. 1993) (appellate court holding that evidence did not sustain finding that parties had married in Puerto Rico for the purpose of evading the law of Arizona). See generally Uniform Marriage Evasion Act, 9 U.L.A. 480 (1942) (N.B.: The Uniform Marriage Evasion Act is superseded by the Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act, and was officially withdrawn from consideration by the drafters in 1943).""Second, states have refused to recognize marriages that are solemnized in sister states when the parties are of a level of sanguinity that is forbidden in the forum state. E.g., McMorrow v. Schweiker, 561 F. Supp. 584 (D.N.J. 1982) (rule recognizing foreign marriages does not apply to incestuous marriages); Catalano v. Catalano, 148 Conn. 288, 170 A.2d 726 (1961); In re May's Estate, 305 N.Y. 486, 114 N.E.2d 14 (1953)."
"Third, states have refused to recognize marriages that are solemnized in sister states when the parties are not deemed of sufficient age to marry, as determined in the forum state. E.g., Wilkins v. Zelchowski, 26 N.J. 370, 140 A.2d 65 (1958)."
We should examine existing law before deciding that the best course of action is to hand more power to the Federal Government.
Luis
P.S. And if we don't overturn the Defense of Marriage Act before it's challenged in Federal Court, the next Amendment will be the one defining the right of same-sex couples to marry.
BS. They couldn't pass it in California, Vermont or Hawaii. The Hawaians set a precednt. Judical Activists found a right for homosexual marriage and the residents of Hawaii amended the state constitution to tell their rogue court where to stick it.
Not to show any disrespect, but did you somehow miss what happened last week with the Supreme Court? It's too late for your argument, unfortunately. This amendment is needed (that is, assuming you think that marriage is important).
Read my posting at #180. I don't think any of the laws you posted would come into play if a State makes an amendment to their constitution saying same sex marriage is legal.
Luis, the Supreme Court wil rule that it is demeaning to gays and therefore a violation of their 14th amendment rights for a state not to recognize their "marriage".
Whether there is a DOMA or not.
That is one of the few certain inferences from this bizarre ruling.