ETA: So if a couple gets married in a state where it is legal and moves to another state, where it is not, are they legally married, with the rights and privileges recognized and protected?

I think this is what DOMA was preventing, so yes? i.e. if you get married in California but honeymoon in Vegas, you stay legally married the whole time.

I thought DOMA was about federal benefits and such. Like, if you get married in Vermont but live in Ohio, you can file federal taxes jointly, but not state taxes, since Ohio still doesn't recognize gay marriage.

I suffered my first serious derby-related injury on Saturday night. I tore a calf muscle and am on crutches for a few days. And off skates for a few weeks.

Bummed out, but at least happy about DOMA's smackdown.

So if a couple gets married in a state where it is legal and moves to another state, where it is not, are they legally married, with the rights and privileges recognized and protected?

For *federal* purposes. If you move to a state that does not recognize your marriage, it still won't.

could a couple sue saying the law violates their Fifth amendment rights and use the DOMA ruling as some kind of precedent that it was overturned on a federal level?

Remains to be seen. I haven't read Kennedy's opinion to parse out the holding (law) and dicta (comments that are not law that couldn't be used as precedent) but the state's rights argument doesn't appear to be a strong as commentators thought it would.

Another question - could people use the DOMA decision as away to challenge laws in states where gay marriage is legal.

I mean, could a couple sue saying the law violates their Fifth amendment rights and use the DOMA ruling as some kind of precedent that it was overturned on a federal level?

Based on what I've heard of the DOMA decision, I'd say yes, but not directly. The Supreme Court placed a heightened scrutiny standard for laws that discriminate based on sexual orientation. Which means that you need a better reason to discriminate on that basis than to discriminate on (most) other bases. So if I were arguing to overturn a state ban on marriage equality, I'd argue the hell out of that decision.

I may be able to explain the Prop 8 decision. Standing is one of those concepts that's easy to state but often tricky to apply in a particular case. Standing is basically "why do you care?" Taken to an absurdity, it means you can't sue if I get into a car accident with my next door neighbor. One of the principles of standing is that you can't challenge a law simply because you're a taxpayer who doesn't want your taxes spent on X, Y, or whatever.

Here's a good plain english summary of both decisions by Marcia Coyle: [link]

WAHOOOOO!!!

For *federal* purposes. If you move to a state that does not recognize your marriage, it still won't.

OK, thanks. Hmm.

Damn, y'all, I woke up early to exercise before it got too hot, but I am GLUED to the laptop.

Woot! Traveling through Utah. Take that LDS!

Jilli: Dammit, Anne Rice. You make it difficult to be a fan of your bombastic vampire books.

Cass: I honestly pretend that she doesn't exist as a person. She wrote the earlier books, then something started taking over her brain in the later ones so they are kinda Anne Rice books but also not really and now what I think of as "Anne Rice" is gone. There are only the books. Primarily the early ones or ones that have David Talbot.

So... like V.C. Andrews?

Google "gay marriage", it made me smile.