[Trinity_Tx]

Here's a snippet from an informative document... (I just skimmed it, but it should help us figure all this out)

Despite the basic rule that a marriage valid where contracted is valid everywhere, the courts and validation statutes have universally recognized a number of exceptions, which may be condensed and simply stated as follows:

A marriage valid where contracted will nevertheless not be recognized as valid in the forum state if such recognition would be contrary to a strong public policy of the forum state. Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws 283(2) comment f (1971) (marriage valid where contracted will be recognized as valid everywhere unless it violates the strong public policy of another state which has the most significant relationship to the spouses of the marriage);
e.g., Fattibene v. Fattibene, 183 Conn. 433, 441 A.2d 3 (1981) (Connecticut need not recognize marriage that violates strong public policy of state);
In re Estate of Loughmiller, 229 Kan. 584, 629 P.2d 156 (1981) (listing exceptions to validation statute, including marriage that is polygamous, incestuous, or prohibited by the state for public policy reason);
K. v. K., 90 Misc. 2d 183, 393 N.Y.S.2d 534 (Fam. Ct. 1977) (court called upon to decide whether law of Poland, which requires civil ceremony in addition to religious ceremony, was repugnant to law of New York);
Kelderhaus v. Kelderhaus, 21 Va. App. 721, 467 S.E.2d 303 (1996) (general statement that marriage's validity is to be determined by law of state where marriage took place, unless result would be repugnant to Virginia public policy).

There's a lot more...

Anyway, I think we need to focus on the real weakness... Because of the above case law, I wouldn't expect the challenges to come based on FCC. But I wouldn't count on the "defined statute" clause to protect states who have them...

I'd expect the gays to challenge all the DOMAs, state and federal, saying they impede their favorite foggy federal rights - privacy and equal protection.

Avoiding that is why so many want the definitions codified in the US constitution via an amendment.

[SolidSupplySide]

Here's an informative quote from your article:

First, marriages that are contracted by domiciliaries of the forum state in another state for the express purpose of evading the law of the forum state are deemed invalid.

Gays can't get married in other jurisdictions just to get around the laws in their home state. And we have US Supreme Court case law to back up this.

[longtermmemmory]

Red herring examples. All of those involve either children, polygamy, or some form of fraud.

NONE of those adress two adults who are not engaged in fraud.

Real money is on judges ruling that two adults of the same sex do not impose on any governemnt interest and doma violates that.

A mere law is too weak and too "tweakable". A FMA will stop the politica BS from the left and homosexuals.

BTW: ALL: beware of disinformation trolls. They HRC and other homowacko groups seek to suggest various grounds to not ammend under the guise of conservatism.

The FMA codifies the EXISTING LAW. It puts in black letter law marriage is one man and one woman. It fulfills the removal of the issue from judges. It puts the remaining questions of civil unions where they should have stayed. individual states, individually.

Beware trolls. (Not you Trinity_Tx) Just be alert folks. We hit a nerve today.