I'm not sure I see your point. I see it conceptally, but not tactically. You seem to be going to great pains to preserve the right of a state to define marriage differently than the others. But among the people of the country there is an overwhelming consensus (even in very left leaning states) that marriage isn't something up for that sort of decision.
It sort of reminds me of that scene in Monty Python's "Life of Brian." In the scene, Stan wants to be a woman so that he can have babies. After some argument and confusion, they agree that he can't have babies because he doesn't have a womb. But they will fight for his right to have babies.
Fighting for the right of a state to redefine marriage reminds me of that.
States do not have rights, they have powers subject to limits by the Constitution. Citizens have enumerated and unenumerated Rights.
But among the people of the country there is an overwhelming consensus (even in very left leaning states) that marriage isn't something up for that sort of decision.
That's true, but who can say a State might decide differently in the future?
You seem to want to make sure they never have the option in the future. That's fine if that's your objective.
Why dance around the point though? Just come right out and say it.
It sort of reminds me of that scene in Monty Python's "Life of Brian." In the scene, Stan wants to be a woman so that he can have babies. After some argument and confusion, they agree that he can't have babies because he doesn't have a womb. But they will fight for his right to have babies.
Flawed analogy because Stan will never be able to have a baby. Whereas a State might decide someday to adopt a marriage standard different from the present.
Fighting for the right of a state to redefine marriage reminds me of that.
That is only true if you know with certainty that a State would never choose to do so in the future. Only Miss Cleo can predict the future.