Sullivan continues, “If you merely want to stop one state’s marriages being nationalized, you have the power already. It’s called the Defense of Marriage Act, alongside the long established precedent of states being able not to recognize out of state marriages for public policy reasons.” I thought Sullivan opposed the DoMA as unconstitutional when it was being debated. I also thought that Sullivan was suggesting that DoMA might not survive when he wrote the following in Time (June 20): “Massachusetts’ highest court is due to rule very soon on whether the denial of marriage to gays is illicit discrimination against a minority. If Massachusetts rules that it is, then gay couples across America will be able to marry not only in Canada (where there are no residency requirements for marriage) but also in a bona fide American state. There will be a long process of litigation as various married couples try hard to keep their marriages legally intact from one state to another.” That litigation is precisely what the FMA is designed to forestall.