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.
You are the one missing the point. If SCOTUS strikes down DOMA using federalism as the reason then the state definition of marriage will have to be used to determine federal benefits. DOMA was the federal definition of marriage. If disallowed because it interferes with the states' rights in such matters, then the state definition of marriage becomes the de facto definition to allocate federal benefits.
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.
Nonsense. There will be no "negotiation" whatever that entails. The federal government administers these programs period. A spouse will be whomever the state decides and the federal government will use that definition.
In the first, most optimistic scenario, one or several marriage-friendly states might allow anyone from any state to get married there, creating a Las Vegas-style business in same- sex marriage. Gay couples would return to their home states with a piece of paper that should, in principle, entitle them to federal marital tax status, immigration benefits and more. But their home states would probably decline to recognize those out- of-state marriages, and deny them state-level marriage benefits.
If the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down DOMA depended on finding that states have an inherent right to define marriage in which the federal government cannot infringe, then the home states’ policy would probably be upheld. The result would be couples who are both married and unmarried for purposes of the same tax returns, mortgages and hospital visits. Each of these conflicts would be brought to the courts. State and federal courts would probably render divergent conclusions -- across all 50 states and 13 federal circuits. If this isn’t legal chaos, nothing is.
If no state wanted to attract business by becoming the same-sex-marriage hub for out-of-state residents, then the anomaly would arise when legally married gay couples moved to states that didn’t recognize their unions. Presumably they would nevertheless bring their federal benefits with them -- giving rise to the same legal issues just described. The only difference would be that litigation would build up slowly, rather than overnight. And what, pray tell, would happen if some of those couples wanted to get divorced but found themselves in legal limbo because their original states of marriage refused to administer a divorce while they lived far away? Would the federal government treat them as divorced even without a state- issued document to that effect?