Paul,
In response to the passage that you quoted, I
would disagree with the argument that the Defense of Marriage Act
(DOMA) and public policy exceptions to the Full Faith and Credit Clause
would be enough protection.
First, right off the bat, DOMA is
simply a federal statute, one that easily could be found
unconstitutional by activist judges. Whether it would be found
unconstitutional if it went all the way up to the United States Supreme
Court is questionable.
If it was held to be unconstitutional, especially on equal protection grounds, the state laws defining marriage would be in trouble–there would be no need to even get to the full faith and credit argument.
Taking the Full Faith and Credit Clause argument alone, it isn’t
that difficult to see judges arguing that the public policy exception
doesn’t apply because the underlying state statute (one that defines
marriage as between a man and a woman) is unconstitutional and doesn’t
provide the necessary “public policy” justification (i.e. no legitimate
state interest in restricting same-sex marriages).
