You might be.
After the ratification of the Constitution and the 10 amendments, known as the Bill of Rights, the jurisdiction of the U.S. Constitution within the boundaries of a sovereign state emanated primarily from Article I, Section 8, Cl 17 (To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever...over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards, and other needful buildings)and Article IV, Section I (Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records and judicial proceedings of every other state.)
Otherwise, the states and the people had exclusive legislative jurisdiction within the boundaries of their state. (Amendment X)
That all change after the ratification of the Amendment XIV after the War of Northern Agression against the Southern States.
Amendment XIV, ultimately and in all practicality, severely diminished, denied, and disparaged the covenant of Amendment X and granted defacto jurisdiction of the entire U.S. Constitution within the boundaries of sovereign state.
Fast forward to today and the gay marriage question. Rush Limbaugh asks, why is a constitutional amendment needed to prevent gay marriage?
Because, gay marriage and for that matter, all "marriages" are a U.S. Constitution protected, "retained by the people," right. (See Amendment IX)
Amendment IX, now having jurisdiction within a sovereign state, coupled with Article IV and Amendment XIV of the U.S. Constitution, means there is no way any state or federal law could pass proper constitutional scrutiny. (A citizen has the "retained" right to marry the person of their choice (Amendment IX)and "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Amendment VIX)
Massachussets has properly and legally exerted their 10th amendment right, thus Article IV (full faith and credit clause) is now in force and creating a legal and constitutonal federal issue.
California, on the otherhand, has not legally and constitutionally dealt with this issue properly within their state boundaries and thus Article IV will not bind the other states to the rogue behavior of the San Francisco mayor and local judges.
So it appears that both the states and federal constitutions are actively in play concerning this issue of gay marriage.
Bologna, the Constitution also guarantees a "republican form of government" to all of the states. Republican forms of government do not allow legislatures to break the law and courts to make the law. And that is exactly the path to homosexual "marriage" in Massachusetts.