BOSTON — The federal law banning gay marriage is unconstitutional because it interferes with the right of a state to define the institution and therefore denies married gay couples some federal benefits, a federal judge ruled Thursday in Boston.

(AP/MSNBC)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38154952

Would it be illegal in Boston for a health insurance company of ask for proof of marriage between a gay married illegal immigrant couple when adding a spouse to the insurance?  Or would that be profiling?  Does Arizona have State rights?

If the gay marriage ban is upheld, states have the authority to regulate marriage, but the Federal Govt has the authority to regulate immigration.

De Canas v. Bica: Justice William J. Brennan wrote in his opinion that “the power to regulate immigration is unquestionably exclusively a federal power.” The Supreme Court also articulated three tests that determine whether a law is preempted: Is the state or locality attempting to regulate immigration? (Constitutional preemption) Did Congress intend to occupy the field and oust state or local power? (Field preemption) Does the state or local law stand as an obstacle to or conflict with federal law, making compliance with both the state and federal law impossible? (Conflict preemption) The federal government challenge against SB-1060 focuses on Constitutional preemption, but there is certainly an argument to be made in favor Field and Conflict preemption.