[Lunatic Fringe]

This is a state issue, not a federal issue. We as conservatives encourage State's Rights. So if Massachusettes wants to make gay marriage legal, let them. Watch the migration to other states, and chuckle as legislators scramble to reverse the decision.

[longtermmemmory]

It is no longer a state issue.

[SAJ]

I'd agree with your position in a theoretical sense, but in the practical world there is the little matter of the ''full faith and credit'' clause of the Constitution.

Lawsuits will follow, immediately, demanding that EVERY other state recognise these abominable ''marriages'' ''performed'' in the People's Republic of Kennedy. And, Constitutionally and logically, these suits should prevail -- the Constitutional language could hardly be clearer.

This situation must be short-circuited; either Romney must immediately propose appropriate legislation or impeachment actions must be initiated against these 4 justices (one of whom, btw, is the wife of the infamous NY Slimes ex-columnist, Red Tony Lewis). Further, as unpleasant as it may be to a constitutionalist purist, the Regress must be strong-armed into approving the applicable Amendment.

[The_Pickle]

It is a Federal Issue as the United States Constitution demands that all States give full credence and recognition to the Laws of the other States. A Homosexual couple. legally "married" in Massachusetts must, according the to the US Constitution, be given the same rights and privledges in every other State in the Union.

This and this alone makes it a national issue requiring, in my view, either a supreme court ruling defining marriage in set terms (not open to interpretation by lower courts) or a Constitutional amendment, ratified by the States, doing the same.

[Aetius]

What you say might have some merit if it were not for left-wing federal judges who will force it on other states. Sooner or later, the Federal Defense of Marriage Act will be challenged, and sooner or later a liberal appellate court will tell, for example, that New Hampshire must recognize Massachusetts' gay marriages regardless of the DOFAct and state bans on gay marriage.

That is why it is a disingenuous and phony position that at least 6 of the Democratic candidates have taken. They say it should be left up to the states, while they know that the leftist judges they would appoint would most certainly take away that option.

While I oppose gay marriage for religious and cultural reasons anywhere in the nation, on a practical level I could go along with what you say if what you say were practical. But with liberal judges it is not.

[HitmanLV]

This is a state issue, not a federal issue. We as conservatives encourage State's Rights. So if Massachusettes wants to make gay marriage legal, let them.

There is one problem with your analysis.

It's wrong.

The full faith and credit clause in the US Constitution means that when one state recognizes something like marriage, all of the other 49 have to recognize it, also.

People don't get a new marriage license when they move to a different state. Married in one state means married in all states - all states recognize the union, as does the Fed Gov for tax purposes, etc.

So when a homosexual married couple moves from Mass to your home state, guess what: they are married.

While I agree in the concept of state's rights, that's not a blanket license for the states to get loopy.