If the FMA is the uber-cannon in the war of words, imagine if the DOMA were changed only to circumvent the Full Faith And Credit Clause for same-sex marriages. From Lectlaw:

The first substantive section of the bill is an exercise of Congress’power under the “Effect” clause of Article IV, section 1 of the Constitution (the Full Faith and Credit Clause) to allow each State (or other political jurisdiction) to decide for itself whether it wants to grant legal status to same-sex “marriage.” This provision is necessary in light of the possibility of Hawaii giving sanction to same-sex “marriage” under its state law, as interpreted by its state courts, and other states being placed in the position of having to give “full faith and credit” to Hawaii’s interpretation of what constitutes “marriage.” Although so-called “conflicts of law” principles do not necessarily compel such a result, approximately 30 states of the union are sufficiently alarmed by such a prospect to have initiated legislative efforts to defend themselves against any compulsion to acknowledge same-sex “marriage.”

Ok. Now stop there. Forget carving in stone the definition of marriage. Take a deep breath, and think really hard: if you do marry a partner of the same sex, do you want to live in a state that is not ready to accept your union? Ok. You can’t have your cake and eat it too, folks. Move to Hawaii, or move to Massachusetts. But don’t move to Mississippi or Wyoming and demand recognition under the Full Faith and Credit Clause. If you actually live in Mississippi or Wyoming, again. There are sacrifices and compromises on both sides.

Right now, both sides want Everything™. This has to change, and it leaves me to wonder if rewriting the DOMA would be a far better alternative to the FMA.