“A person can support same sex marriage, but admit that it’s a state issue to be decided locally,”
Really? That’s about the exact opposite of what it says in Article 4, Section 1.
The author tries to make the point that we need to be consistent in our support of adherence to the Constitution. He should too.
If we want to define marriage as only one man and one woman, we either need to do that in all 57 states or amend the US Constitution.
Four states had to forever swear off plural marriage in order for Congress to allow them into the Union: Oklahoma, Arizona, Utah, and Idaho.
One man, one woman marriage. It’s the law of the land. Always has been.
Those who let the silly states’ rights arguments come into this are playing directly into the hands of the radical gay activists.