I'm conflicted on this.

From a practical approach, this seems like a terrible idea.

Are you thinking like I am that a "states rights" argument for gay marriage would backfire magnificently in the long run?

That's how I feel about it. I'm all for states rights but there are certain things the federal government has a responsibility to guarantee. Just like states shouldn't have the right to make laws telling me I can't marry a black chick.

Perhaps, but that's not what I was thinking. My thought was "they're going to lose." And this would set a precedent I don't think these lawyers want set. I'm sometimes baffled that lawyers bring certain cases.

There isn't anything in the constitution that gives the federal government the power to define marriage and that power should fall to the states as it is designed anyway.

It should be ruled that the Federal Defensive of Marriage Act is unconstitutional... but we are so far down that slippery slope already... I'm not sure what the outcome would be.

It's absolutely a states rights issue but it's also kind of a civil rights issue at least if we are going to treat people legally different if they are married and or unmarried.

Make it a states rights issue and you risk some states banning it altoegther. This would anger the people that see at least the legal concept of marriage as a civil right between any two people who want to marry.

I haven't read the complaint, but opposition to DOMA should not be approached as a states rights issue. It should be attacked as a violation of the "full faith and credit" clause of the US Constitution and taken down on that basis.

Makes sense. I wonder if this is the very nature of the suit.

I'll add the wiki entry about the FFC clause so it will be here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_Faith ... dit_Clause

What are you saying here? That people shouldn't take important issues to the court if there is a good chance they will lose? I'm not sure I understand your objection here. What should be done about this unfair federal law, if not challenge its adherence to the Constitution in court?

I agree that this shouldn't be attacked as a state's rights issue, mostly because I hate state rights.

The thinking would be that you don't bring it to a court where you know/there is a very high certainty of losing for such an important case. You make it an issue and publicize your position as best you can and hope to gather more people to your side and you wait for a more opportune time.

Agreed. That would be a much better way to go about it, but doesn't this imply they're going more of a states' rights route:
If that isn't a states' rights defense I don't know what is.

isn't 'full faith and credit' under the umbrella of states rights?

it deals with interactions between states.

Right.

"Full Faith and Credit" is a clause in the Constitution.

"States' Rights" is a nebulous term that has no solid basis in law. There is the 10th Amendment, and there are numerous traditions of common law and specific exclusions of federal statutory law that deal with the primacy of states in certain areas of law, but "States' Rights" is a political term, not a legal doctrine.

There aren't enough people on the side of gay rights yet? How long do you suggest waiting?

Shouldn't the Supreme Court be looking at a case like this? It seems pretty important.

So come here to Brazil, where the states have to swallow every imbecile decision from the federal sphere.

Even in California of all places gay marriage got slapped down pretty handedly last November. And public opinion doesn't particularly matter when you're talking about taking the case to the Supreme Court which is currently 4 liberals, 4 conservatives, and 1 swing vote. The ironic thing of course would be that if the case was argued on a states' rights basis, as the header post seems to indicate, the judges would likely vote opposite of their constitutional ideology in order to attempt to get the outcome they desire, even if it goes against their normal interpretation of the constitution.

When I think of the concept I generally think of the 10th Amendment and the Text....

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Naturally like everything else in the world it leaves a lot for interpretation.

I tend to believe in spirit it is there to get buy in from the states that the Federal government would not be allowed to become domineering and take away soverignty from the states.... it since has in spirit but that's a different argument anyway.