What I don't understand is why people are challenging DoMA on due process (which could be argued either way) and not on its direct violation of the "Full Faith and Credence" clause.
Not that it's in any way a good law, but doesn't it make more sense to attack it on the most directly unconstitutional bits?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Not that it's in any way a good law, but doesn't it make more sense to attack it on the most directly unconstitutional bits?