Got it, you are taking the "one must examine all of the nuances" route so favored by pseudo-intellectuals.
As to question 1, I don't know if it "should" be up to the individual states, because that was NOT the issue here. The issue here was whether or not the state route was the best way to uphold traditional marriage. And my answer is it probably is. Just probably. I never said 100%, and I don't say that now. And I think that was Beck's point.
I'll take that as a YES.
As to question 2, you can ask 100 lawyers and get 100 different answers probably. I prefer to deal in the real and practical, and not always get in the weeds of the legal and the hypothetical. All I can say is, the last time I checked, there was no huge migration of gay couples from other states into a state where gay marriage is not allowed.
Have you got an actual SOURCE that you are prepared to cite? Or is this just speculation?
People move all the time, to suggest that homosexual don't is absurd. This is far from hypothetical.
My suggestion to you is to look at it this way: having such an amendment passed will likely discourage gay couples from moving in. This is another reason why the answer to question 1 is, as I said, probably.
So, in your hypothetical universe, you believe SCOTUS will uphold amendments to state constitutions that discourage homosexuals from relocating?
You have taken obtuse to an entirely new level. Congratulations. I’m sure you’ll have this solved by lunch tomorrow, and that is a relief. Ping me when it’s done, and we’ll give you the next issue to handle, which I’ll expect by the New Year. Maybe the fiscal cliff. Or abortion. Damn you’re good, and I’m so glad we live on your planet Shallowtron, where issues are so easily solved.