I have a question for Emily about Doma and Michelle Bachman.

I read yesterday in the Des Moines Register about a question and answer between Michelle Bachman

and two local high school girls who asked whether denying same-sex marriage was discriminatory.

Michelle Bachman, her answer, was that it wasn't discriminatory because it was the law of the land.

Now, as you know, same-sex marriage is legal in Iowa. However, DOMA is still on the books.

My question is, was Michelle Bachman or the high school girls correct?

Oh, that's such a good. You should use that as a law school exam, hypothetical.

Give it to some law school professors. So, DOMA says that the states, other states, don't have to recognize same-sex marriage.

It doesn't invalidate Iowa's law.

Iowa can recognize same-sex marriage under DOMA.

What?

Just move up to my phone.

I was already wrong.

So, I mean, Bachman is correct.

The DOMA is the law of the land, but she's not correct.

I don't think that certainly that's not the only law of our many lands.

And you know what?

This is really about two things.

One is our federalist system. This is it playing out in front of us. We have federal laws and we have

state laws and sometimes they express conflicting values and they really don't fit together very

well. That's part of what we're seeing. And then the other, you know, deeper question is an historical

one. We have had many laws in this country, which at the time people upheld fervently and which

...