My intent was to show you that you misread Reynolds. No more, no less.
Marriage is a religious practice that can be regulated by statute alone.
No kidding, but so what? That doesn't mean that *Congress* gets to regulate it for the *states*. You're taking a case which simply says that religious belief does not justify lawbreaking, and you're tarting it up as some sort of proof that the federal government has authority to ban gay marriage in all 50 states. Hello? The case was about a territorial marriage law, not state marriage law. Can you read?
It means what the Congress determines, not you or the court.
Congress can write marriage laws for D.C., and maybe for Guam or American Samoa or something like that. It can't write marriage laws for the states, no matter how hard you stamp your feet and wish that it were otherwise.
Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act
Again, so what? DOMA doesn't regulate, determine, or change substantive state laws in any manner. DOMA pretty much just restates the meaning of the Full Faith and Credit clause. Congress couldn't change the meaning of the clause even if it wanted to--it couldn't and it didn't. The states were free to make whatever marriage laws they wanted before DOMA was passed, and they're still free to make whatever marriage laws they want today. Even *before* DOMA was passed, states didn't have to recognize out-of-state marriages that were contrary their own policy preferences, and they still don't have to recognize such marriages today. DOMA's essentially a no-shit-sherlock law; it changed nothing.
Really, if you want gay marriage banned throughout the states, it's going to take a constitutional amendment, your misreadings of Reynolds and DOMA to the contrary notwithstanding.
I do prefer a constitutional prohibition.
A ban in each of the 50 states would suffice as a statutory regulation. But on the federal level, Congress has the authority to pass a statute restricting marriage, as they already have many, many times.
“Marriage” is not in the Constitution anywhere, neither is “privacy” or “education.” Congress is obviously not prohibited in those areas either, are they? “Separation of Church and State” is not in the Constitution. But since Congress, state legislatures, state and federal courts, and the Left hold everyone to that case law precedent originally from Reynolds v. United States, hey let's cram it right back down their throats.
Since most churches are 501(c), they have to comply with the Internal Revenue Code Congress makes or lose their 501(c) tax-exempt status. (I would love to see all 501(c) organizations folded up.) And since Congress has the power to lay and collect taxes based on marital status, they do have regulatory power to define what constitutes a marriage.