What would repeal of DOMA accomplish?

Same sex marriages performed in Michigan still would still be refused recognition by the state and the public policy exception to the full faith and credit clause would still be in force. Some states recognize common law marriages or a marriage between an uncle and a niece but if such a couple were to move to a state where such marriages are prohibited, their marriage may not be recognized because of the public policy exception to the full faith and credit clause. A gay couple in Michigan wishing to marry could travel to a state such as Massachusetts to marry but if they return to Michigan, their marriage might not be recognized by the state.

A repeal of DOMA would allow federal recognition of same sex marriages in states that recognize such a union but there might not be federal recognition of same sex marriages in states where such unions are not recognized.

I'm not trying to say DOMA should not be repealed but if or when it is, I foresee years of legal and political struggle in making same sex marriages recognized in all 50 states.

You could be legally married in Massachusetts, but because of DOMA, you have to file as singles for federal taxes, but could file as a married couple under Massachusetts state tax filing.

They'd have to file as singles for federal taxes even if DOMA was repealed.

Does Michigan have a specific law that says "We don't recognize those gay marriages from Massachusetts?"

Usually, with the states, marriage recognition is reciprocal.

I'm just asking, I do not know the answer to this....

"Michigan case law also recognizes the public policy exception to the Full Faith and Credit Clause. The Michigan Supreme Court in In re Miller's Estate, 239 Mich 455, 457; 214 NW 428 (1927), held that, were the Michigan Legislature to declare a type of out-of-state marriage to be invalid as a matter of public policy, it would be invalid in Michigan, even if valid in the state where contracted. The Legislature's declaration in MCL 551.1 that " marriage contracted between individuals of the same sex is invalid in this state falls squarely within this public policy exception."

http://www.ag.state.mi.us/opinion/datafiles/2000s/op10236.htm

Because it is a law that denies people their civil rights.

At least for the vast majority of members of the GLBT community.

Then we go on to the next unjust law... and the next... and the next, until there are no more laws that deny people civil rights.

If it is too much for you to handle, get the fuck out of the way and let those interested in civil rights for all take care of it.

Witness the outrage directed at Obama for not actively seeking to repeal DOMA. An action that really wouldn't do much for the vast majority of people who believe in marriage equality. It wouldn't take much effort to qoute posts made by folks who've given up.

Your the one claiming the futility of fighting DOMA because it is not a cure all.

What I have said or tried to get across though is that a repeal of DOMA is not a cure all and the fight for marriage equality will most likely take years.

THEN WHAT????

:scared:

Like, is that right? As opposed to, like, ZERO people getting justice?

to the Full Faith and Credit clause:

"Second, the Full Faith and Credit Clause is not inflexible. An exception exists for those instances, such as same-sex marriage, where one state's law would contradict the public policy of another state. The United States Supreme Court has examined the Full Faith and Credit Clause on numerous occasions. In a case involving a state court's order of a money judgment, Baker v General Motors Corp, 522 US 222; 118 S Ct 657; 139 L Ed 2d 580 (1998), the Supreme Court reviewed prior decisions and noted a distinction between court judgments and a state's laws for purposes of applying the Full Faith and Credit Clause:

Our precedent differentiates the credit owed to laws (legislative measures and common law) and to judgments. . . . The Full Faith and Credit Clause does not compel "a state to substitute the statutes of other states for its own statutes dealing with a subject matter concerning which it is competent to legislate." Pacific Employers Ins Co v Industrial Accident Comm’n, 306 US 493, 501, 83 L Ed 940, 59 S Ct 629 (1939); see Phillips Petroleum Co v Shutts, 472 US 797, 818-819, 86 L Ed 2d 628, 105 S Ct 2965 (1985). Regarding judgments, however, the full faith and credit obligation is exacting. <522 US at 232-233.>

While Massachusetts now allows marriage contracts between its citizens of the same sex as a result of a state court order, the court's decision is an interpretation of Massachusetts law and not a judgment that must be given full faith and credit in other states. The United States Supreme Court offered an even clearer statement regarding the proper application of US Const, art IV, § 1, in Nevada v Hall, 440 US 410, 422; 99 S Ct 1182; 59 L Ed 2d 416 (1979), quoting Pacific Employers Ins Co v Industrial Accident Comm’n, 306 US at 502-503:

"It has often been recognized by this Court that there are some limitations upon the extent to which a state may be required by the full faith and credit clause to enforce even the judgment of another state in contravention of its own statutes or policy. . . . And in the case of statutes, the extrastate effect of which Congress has not prescribed, as it may under the constitutional provision, we think the conclusion is unavoidable that the full faith and credit clause does not require one state to substitute for its own statute, applicable to persons and events within it, the conflicting statute of another state, even though that statute is of controlling force in the courts of the state of its enactment with respect to the same persons and events."

According to the Court in Nevada v Hall, the Full Faith and Credit Clause "'does not here enable one state to legislate for the other or to project its laws across state lines so as to preclude the other from prescribing for itself the legal consequences of acts within it.'" 440 US at 423-424, quoting Pacific Employers Ins Co, 306 US at 504-505.

Michigan case law also recognizes the public policy exception to the Full Faith and Credit Clause. The Michigan Supreme Court in In re Miller's Estate, 239 Mich 455, 457; 214 NW 428 (1927), held that, were the Michigan Legislature to declare a type of out-of-state marriage to be invalid as a matter of public policy, it would be invalid in Michigan, even if valid in the state where contracted. The Legislature's declaration in MCL 551.1 that " marriage contracted between individuals of the same sex is invalid in this state" falls squarely within this public policy exception."

http://www.ag.state.mi.us/opinion/datafiles/2000s/op10236.htm

As opposed to having to file two sets of tax forms, one recognizing your marriage and one showing that you are legal strangers.