1. People move. If two guys get married in Vermont and later move to Oklahoma are they still married?
2. The IRS. Does the Vermont couple file jointly as married and the Oklahoma couple not?
3. That 14th Ammendment. Yes, we don't care for it, but it'll mean the courts will decided this on a one size fits all matter.
1. Federal protection of marriage act answers this question.
2. Yes, because they are not married in the eyes of Oaklahoma.
3. That's not necessarily true. We don't know that yet, we'll only know when it actually comes up before the court.
I understand the problems with handling it at a state level, and if it doesn't work, i.e. if the courts mandate it, then I would support a Constitutional Amendment. Preferably, I would amend the Constitution to specifically make it a states issue, but if banning it federally were the only step available, I would take it.
I respect the side that says we need to act first, it's a respectable position and I understand their reasons, but I would rather wait till we know for sure that is our only out. Federalism has bent and broken enough on pressure from the left, it doesn't need pressure from the right unless absolutely necessary.
We are just going to disagree tacticly. I think that once the courts rule, the horse is out of the barn and isn't going back in. I probably would be loathe to support a Constitutional Amendment at that point knowing it would be far too late. You'd have sympathetic "married" couples to sway public opinion and then the issue would be do churches who not perform gay weddings lose their tax exempt status.
I'm for playing shut down defense NOW and not needing a Hail Mary pass in the fourth quarter.