"I see that as an act that was prohibiting the move to nationalize it and force Iowa to accept the rules of Massachusetts or whatever."As I have previously stated on this blog, the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution that Paul is making reference here too, does not in any way require that states recognize the marriages performed in other states if the strong public policy of the receiving state contradicts the sending one.
Additionally, I do not see how Paul - as a states rights supporter - can legitimately claim that DOMA is good for states rights, when the law CLEARLY discriminates against individual states definition of marriage. As I have asked before, why is it that Tennessee gets more authority under federal law to define marriage in their jurisdiction than Massachusetts? The Federal Government is clearly playing favorites.
Though I am not necessarily a fan of what the Obama administration did in deciding not to defend DOMA, I find it increasingly funny that the social conservatives ( and those who are vying for their approval) are contradicting their foundational Constitutional principles so that they can keep a law that they socially agree with.