[SAJ]

The remedy to the ''full faith and credit'' end-run for homosexual 'marriage' (sic) has already been implemented in at least two states. All that need occur is the passage of an amendment to the state constitution defining marriage correctly, and prohibiting the executive branch of the state government from recognising homosexual 'marriages' in any form or fashion.

If stare decisis is the game the homos want to play, they'll lose; Federal courts have decided on numerous occasions that a provision in one state's constitution absolutely trumps another state's statutory permissions, within the former state's jurisdiction. It can hardly be otherwise, for, were it so, any state legislature could void any other state's constitution in whole or in part by merely passing a statute.

The technical term for such an eventuality, given some sort of ex jure barbaro voiding process like this, is chaos.

[wagglebee]

I agree. However, to compare state sovereignty with homosexual marriage with abortion, is a non-issue. Abortion could easily be determined by the individual states.