These two critters are blowing smoke. They're just trying to get some publicity.
The "It" portion of the duo was a MAN when they were married. The inevitable phalanx of lawyers will argue that under contract law, that makes the contract binding. A ruling that the contract still stands, even though the former "Man" is now an "It", would set *no* legal precedent w/r/t two people who were both male or both female BEFORE a marriage,
This is what happened in Belgium a couple of years back.
Unless we decide to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment, then it would seem to me that being able to properly define males and females is something that should happen at the national level.
Phyllis Schlafly predicted that the ERA would lead to gay marriages because if a man and woman have the exact same legal status before the law, then a man marrying a woman is legally equivalent to a man marrying a man.
People who say that all this should be left up to the states mystify me. Roe v. Wade has made it difficult to constitutionally define what a human being is, so I guess I shouldn't be that surprised that even fellow conservatives don't seem to care about crossing the T's and dotting the I's when it comes to defining what men and women are!