Oh, my! Where to begin?
OK, start here: Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong WRONG!
First point: There is no Federal law requiring recognition of personal services contracts between two people of the same sex as "marriage".
Second point: The only Federal laws that are superior to, or which vacate, state law are laws (passed by both Houses of Congress and signed by the President) which are made "in pursuance thereof [of the powers delegated to Congress by the States or the People]". No pretended law made by Congress in the future claiming that same-sex relationships are marriages could be a law made "in pursuance thereof", therefore, any such Federal law would be a nullity as regards the states.
Third point: We are not even discussing laws. We are discussing opinions of inferior Federal courts (Article III courts created by Congress). Any opinion of such a court is not a "Federal law", and under no circumstance is Article VI §2 (the "Supremacy Clause") implicated.
Sheesh! Doesn't anybody go to school anymore?
Hold on! I was just quoting from the article, which i should have made clear. May Judge Roy Moore be multiplied!
I’m in the presence of greatness. Beautiful summation.
The problem with that statement which Kennedy is quoted as saying and law schools commonly teach is it is missing a very important phrase. It should read
“Whenever state law conflicts with constitutional federal law, federal law wins. Whenever state law conflicts with unconstitutional federal law, state law wins.”
The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution reads, "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof...shall be the supreme law of the land" Article VI, Sect 2 of U.S. Constitution.
If a federal law, act, decision, or regulation is not made IN PURSUANCE of the Constitution, it is NOT the law of the land but is invalid. and should be repealed at the federal level or nullified and rejected at the state level, including unconstitutional federal meddling in marriage.