Did you bother to read this article?
I did.
Rather than taking a bold stand and stating that WI will disregard any federal ruling that usurps its constitutional amendment defining marriage overwhelmingly supported by Wisconsinites like me, he's wishing and praying that SCOTUS - the same SCOTUS that upheld Obamacare and magically found a right to abortion - will do the job for him.
If not, then he's hoping for a constitutional amendment.
There is no federal jurisdiction whatsoever over state constitutional amendments defining marriage.
The reason so many politicians and Internet debaters are getting tangled up in this issue is because they start by granting the premise that it is possible for two men or two women to be married to each other, and are then stuck debating whether or not states can forbid it.
That question is like, “can states allow fire that does not burn?” or, “can states allow water that freezes at 70 degrees?”
If states cannot allow those things (and they cannot), then you don’t have to worry about whether or not they can ban them.
The reason so many politicians and Internet debaters are getting tangled up in this issue is because they start by granting the premise that it is possible for two men or two women to be married to each other, and are then stuck debating whether or not states can forbid it.
That question is like, “can states allow fire that does not burn?” or, “can states allow water that freezes at 70 degrees?”
If states cannot allow those things (and they cannot), then you don’t have to worry about whether or not they can ban them.
He or she sounds like some of the Libertarians who are stuck on Cruz.