[sickoflibs]

RE :”When U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker struck down California’s Proposition 8, the subsequent hubbub centered primarily around whether the decision was an example of judicial activism. Whether Walker, or any federal judge, is within their jurisdiction to rule on a state’s constitution is an entirely separate argument from whether the institution of marriage ought to be redefined.
No matter which side of the latter issue you support, it is of greater importance to the integrity of our republican jurisprudence that we all embrace the correct answer to the former. It is the purview of the states to craft family law, not federal judges. “

This aspect bothers me way more than individual states deciding to marry same sex partners. Also I don't like the states telling the federal government that they must redefine marriage (’to two human beings’) wrt federal benefits. But if a liberal state wants to create same sex marriages, especially through their elected legislature, let them.

[circlecity]

"But if a liberal state wants to create same sex marriages, especially through their elected legislature, let them."

I tend to agree but the big question becomes whether the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution would require other states to honor the gay marriages which occur in the liberal states. If so, then one state could concievably impose gay marriage on the other 49.