Andrew says this:
...so the notion that four judges in Massachusetts can impose civil marriage for gays on an entire country is simply mistaken. Some argue that activist courts these days will over-rule these precedents. But with 38 states explicitly saying they won't recognize such marriages; with the Defense of Marriage Act backing that up; the likelihood is minimal.
To which, if I were Charles, I'd respond that there are currently no states that don't recognize the marriages performed in other states. And I'd ask Andrew if he knows of any civil rights that apply to Massachussetts residents that would exclude Oregonians. If he acknowledges that marriage isn't a civil right, then I think we're all set. If he doesn't acknowledge that, we have a problem.
The bottom line is that I think Andrew's position on this is internally inconsistent.
The Lawrence case will result in the DOMA being ruled unconstitutional (note that Sen. Kerry voted against DOMA because he thought it was unconstitutional). The FF&C allows states to refuse to recognize legal acts of other states on public policy grounds - but if the public policy is irrational and bigoted, as the Massachusetts Supreme Court and the Lawrence court have held laws upholding traditional views of sexual morality to be, then the public policy exception is invalid. Indeed, a number of gay rights groups have announced plans to seek the invalidation of the DOMA on just these grounds. (Posted by DBL on Dan Drezner's comment sectionPosted by Demosophist at February 27, 2004 09:18 AM | TrackBack