[marktwain]

One can hope.

The commerce clause makes no sense if everything is interstate commerce.

Everything has some influence on interstate commerce.

There has to be a line.The Supreme Court has refused to draw that line.

One could clearly argue that "gay marriage" has an influence on interstate commerce, so it can be regulated.

No one has made that argument, that I know of.

[goldstategop]

The catch-all clause. Very little in 1787 was interstate commerce or of a global nature.

Today the opposite is the case. Almost nothing we do or sell or buy is intrastate anymore.

[Rockingham]

Modern transportation and communications make a restrictive view of the Commerce Clause difficult to justify or apply in a reliable manner. Indeed, few economists today would disagree with the Court's reasoning in its unanimous opinion in Wickard that permitting wheat to be freely grown and processed into grain for animal feed for use on farms where it is grown would have no effect on the production and price of wheat placed into interstate commerce. And it should not be overlooked that the farmers in Wickard were free to grow wheat and use it as animal fodder so long as they did not separate the mature wheat heads and process them into grain as is used in commerce.

As for gay marriage, the Court's wretched Obergefell mandating gay marriage relied on the 14th Amendment, not the Commerce Clause.