No, it isn't a state issue. It's a gay attack of 11 years' duration now, going back to their filing Baehr vs. Lewin in Hawaii in 1993, in which Hawaiian gays demanded marriage licenses.
The strategy is to secure homosexual marriage in one State of the Union, and then immediately sue for injunctive relief in the other 49 States, citing the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution. If you're interested, I can link you to a 2001 article in Gay and Lesbian Review online, in which Evan Wolfson, discussing the then-recent loss of the James Dale/ Boy Scouts of America case, mentioned this gay-marriage strategy and how it fit into the overall homosexual campaign to procure and use a Supreme Court decision to stuff anti-homosexual morality.
Which is why President Bush perceived the need for a Constitutional amendent, as he stated in his State of the Union (as but one, but the highest profile, example of him speaking to this).
I'll give you the fact it is an attack by sodomites for the past 10-15 years. However, what does the letter of the 10th say? Did not the right to determine the laws of marriage before the constant attacks by sodomites fall under the powers of the states? Are you saying because the attacks changed the rule of law should change? DOMA passed back in the 1990s verifies the right of the states to pass marriage laws