Morgan wrote:Which horse? The effect of gay marriage on straight youth? Or the right of the Federal government to impose a specific definition of marriage on the states? DOMA defines marriage at a Federal level -- there is nothing in it that prohibits, say, Massachusetts, from granting marriage licenses to gay couples. It just means that those marriages will not be recognized at a Federal level, nor will any other state be forced to recognize them. But Bush is evidently pushing for something stronger -- presumably a Constitutional amendment that would prohibit all the individual states from ever granting homosexual marriage licenses.
This isn't Congress v. "the courts." It's Federal v. State.
Other states could be forced to recognize gay unions under the U.S. Constitution. You know that as well as I do.
Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.
As to, which horse, we covered this on why we oppose gay unions.