You talk as though this has been working just great for decades. Not quite. Massachusetts just legalized "gay marriage", and the ramifications are a long way from playing out.
The whole argument will be rendered moot as federal courts step in at the opportune political moment to declare some state's affirmation of marriage as a union between one man and one woman unconstitional. Already happening.
People arguing the other side here on this thread are just practicising "realpolitik", pragmatically pretending to be states rights advocates.
You in that category?
So we are trying to fix a problem that is neither imminent nor defined?
The whole argument will be rendered moot as federal courts step in at the opportune political moment to declare some state's affirmation of marriage as a union between one man and one woman unconstitional. Already happening.
Quite a few federal courts have stepped into the fray, and every single one including the infamous 9th Circuit has affirmed states' bans on gay marriage as constitutional. There is now a fairly lengthy list of precedents reflecting that states have a compelling and legitimate interest in banning same sex marriages. If a renegade district court did strike one down, it would never pass muster in either the Circuit Court or the USSC.
People arguing the other side here on this thread are just practicising "realpolitik", pragmatically pretending to be states rights advocates.
You in that category?
Is that the extent of your argument? First you cannot even define the problem. Second, you cannot find a single case supporting the need. Finally, since none of that works, you take an emotional and hollow shot at those who disagree with you.