I think that the pols are trying to hoodwink us by telling us that the issue of gay marriage has not already been decided. I can't point you to any particular Supreme Court decision, but I'm a lawyer, and I recall that when I studied Constitutional law, one of the examples cited of the full faith and credit clause was that each state is bound to give full faith and credit to marriages formed in the other states. It may not have been based on a particular Supreme Court decision, but it was apparently decided law. That being the case, I would be surprised if the Court rules otherwise just because the "marriage" happens to involve a gay couple.
What am I talking about when I say "hoodwink?"
Very simply, both sides of this debate are arguing that MA gay marriages are not valid in other states. Even Kerry repeated his mantra over and over. He said that other states were not bound to honor MA gay marriages, and therefore, there was no gay marriage problem. Of course, he was just trying to defuse the issue long enough for him to get into office. Once there, he would have flip flopped, saying something like, "As I always said, we have a Constitution."
My response would be something like, "Didn't we have a Constitution when you told us that other states weren't bound to recognize these gay marriages? What's changed since then?"
The position of John Kerry, the Dem party, and many "moderate" Republicans is indeed disingenuous. You are right that the talk of the states being perfectly capable of handling the matter is just an effort to bide their time. They all know full well that it is just a matter of time before some federal Court, and eventually the Sup Court imposes gay marriage or civil unions on the entire nation, and that such an outcome is even more likely if the likes of John Kerry (or Hillary) is making judicial picks. Then once the Courts do the Left's dirty work for them by imposing what they can't win in a fair democratic fight, then all talk of states rights will disappear with lightning speed. Then the mantra will be that "the courts have spoken, its now a matter of settled law that we must accept".....just as they have done with abortion post Roe.
Adding to the disingenuousness, is the fact that many of these people, like Kerry, opposed the Federal Defense of Marriage Act that explicity empowers states to handle the matter and that protects states from the actions of those taken by state courts. Kerry said he opposed it because it was mean-spirited (which can be dismissed as typical leftwing demagogic rhetoric), and because it ran afoul of the Full Faith and Credit Clause. In other words, he took a position in the 04 election that the 1996 version of John Kerry would have deemed mean-spirited and unconstitutional. I kept waiting for Bush to bust him on this and expose his inconsistency and hypocrisy, but sadly Bush only made a passing comment about Kerry voting against DOMA w/o really exploiting that out-of-the-mainstream vote.
But yes, I agree that the media and the Dems are trying to fool the public into thinking that their actions on the state level are enough to settle the matter, and distract them from the imminent threat posed by the federal courts who will strike down their state laws w/o hesitation.