[ansel12]

See post 43, the “states” argument is an argument for gay marriage.

[Amendment10]

Marriage isn’t a state issue today, there is no way that states will be allowed to ignore families that relocate or get transferred there by the federal govt, and military, pretending that ‘gay marriage’ is a state issue is a way to “get r done” for gay marriage nationally.

As I mentioned elsewhere, state power to regulate marriage is not a matter of opinion. State power to regulate marriage is protected by the 10th Amendment, plain and simple.

Regarding the Full Faith and Credit Clause, the Constitution's Section 1 of Article IV which I think you are basing your opinion on, please note the following. Before Congress established the constitutionally indefensible federal drinking age law for example, a 19-year old living in a state where drinking age was 19 couldn't go to a state where drinking age was 21 and buy booze on the basis of the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

What's going on is that pro-gay supporters, which maybe includes you but certainly activist justices, are pushing the gay agenda on PC interpretations of both the Equal Protections Clause of Section 1 of 14A and the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

[DBeers]

IMHO There are issues that are not the peoples, the States OR the Feds to define. These issues could be termed "self evident truths"

Whatever ever 'gay couplings are' they are NOT marriage. That is self evident.