Right.

Um.............what?

I like her eye roll when Grassley says "well then let me followup..."

These hearings are retarded.

What he's saying is that if the states have the right to define marriage, the federal government should not be able to effectively nullify those marriages via DOMA. Basically, if a state allows cousins to marry or 14-yr/olds, the federal government gives those marriages full recognition because the states get to decide who's married, regardless whether or not the federal government approves. DOMA does the opposite, stepping in and nullifying the states' right to decide who's married.

Let's hear it for circular logic! Woohoo!!

Yes and no.

No - 'a fully argued and briefed decision'....I can not hold my breath much longer here in CA. This is very exciting!!

I could see Grassley taking that logic to mean that DOMA should continue to allow states to ignore each other decisions. But given what Grassley said its impossible for him to justify DOMA's revoking federal recognition of lawful marriages here in Iowa.

Is Chuck Grassley suggesting that he disagrees with Loving v. Virginia?

Abso-f^cking-lutely. Also, states must recognize marriages performed in other states. Make it a states'-rights issue, plan on taking a Vermont vacation from wherever you live, and everybody's free.

However, I think it's more correctly a civil-rights issue. No one should be barred from entering a contract because of their sexuality. This is a case of principle over results. Civil rights is a harder row to hoe, but it's the right one.

@9 - That could be the case and I'd love to have someone follow-up with him on that.

The States have the right to regulate marriage, but the feds have the duty to uphold equal protection and due process.

Prop 8 is the "fully argued and briefed" case that should settle the matter in favor of equality.

Keeping my fingers crossed...

Of course it's not a question solely for the states to decide.

The United States Supreme Court has held on many occasions that marriage is a fundamental right under the United States Constitution (as @9 notes, for example, in Loving v. Virginia). Many, many other state laws restricting marriage have been struck down by the federal courts (such as those prohibiting prisoners from marrying).

And Congress has clear authority under Article IV Section 1 of the United States Constitution to prescribe the effect of the public acts of one state (such as its marriage laws) in another state.

Dan,
Am I deaf or did Sen. Grassley ever explicitly ask Ms. Kagan (& did she ever respond to) whether she believes in gay marriage? Or, whether she agrees with marriage in the USA (at least at the Federal level) being defined as "one man & one woman"?

I found that C-Span snippet merely an exchange in legalese. Nothing substantive regarding gay marriage was uttered.

She's doing a good job of playing along with this until it's over. She's plainly amused by it all.

@10- It's not about the sexuality of the contractees, but their gender. I can marry Angelina Jolie but my sister can't, that's gender discrimination.

Am I the only one who has no idea what any of that meant?

@17, Apparently, Grassley didn't, either.

Right, of course, but also Wrong. Her answer is a dodge. If she was pro-marriage equality, Obama would never have nominated her.