I know. I know. But the broad argument really needs to be addressed, not a specific case. If we voted on a states right to define marriage, then all bases can be covered in a yes vote..including polygamy, brother and sister etc. Now, if gay marriage is approved (I said if), next thing you know three dudes and a monkey are suing for their right to be married. Get it?
In the end, I think the state does have the right to define marriage. Now as far as one state voting one way and another state voting another way all I can say is some states have the death penalty and other don’t. I know most states traditionally recognize marriages from other states but who says that’s an absolute?
The bottom line is all this should remain in the voters hands....not like abortion was handled.
Yes but abortion was handled with a Federal court not the Federal legislative process. If we attempt to leave gay marriage to the state legislative process, it will probably get handled by a federal court, too. It's why we need to head it off with legislation.
Death penalty is not a good analogy though because it doesn't cross state lines, except maybe the extradition process. Marriage does because of company sponsored family health insurance. Get a handful of states backing gay marriage and the battle is lost because national firms will push states for consistency.