The concern was that otherwise the Full Faith and Credit Clause would be interpreted to mean that all states had to recognize gay 'marriages' performed in states that allowed it. Did you really not know that?
Sorry, the full faith and credit clause doesnt require a state to substitute its own laws the conflicting law of another state. Did you really think that?
Liberals think that - which is why DOMA was needed. Any other questions you'd like me to clear up for you?
See Wisconsin v. Pelican Insurance Co., 127 U.S. 265; Huntington v. Attrill, 146 U.S. 657; Finney v. Guy, 189 U.S. 335; see also Clarke v. Clarke, 178 U.S. 186; Olmsted v. Olmsted, 216 U.S. 386; Hood v. McGehee, 237 U.S. 611; cf. Gasquet v. Fenner, 247 U.S. 16.
But aside from that, your position is that the FF&CC does force another state's laws on another and so you're sitting here arguing about why DOMA is needed when it's clearly unconstitutional by your own interpretation.
LOL. Progressive much? Golly gee, I guess I'm off to grow me some weed here in Utah since Washington says they can. According to you, I wont be arrested and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. < rolls eyes >
You just sat there and told me that libtards believe the FF&CC doesnt require a state to substitute its own laws the conflicting law of another state.
And then you said that DOMA was needed to protect against something liberals dont even believe in. LMAO! Yea, you really just cleared it all up for me. I guess yer kickin and fussin and being a little incoherent.