Ltm, I think the important difference is that marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution and therefore is left to the states (unless an amendment is passed to the Constitution) while the 2nd A is a part of the Constitution and therefore applies to the entire nation.
This would also be the problem Rudy has with trying to say his previous gun grabbing is OK because of Federalism. He's trying to say that any law should be interpreted differently in different parts of the country and ignoring the fact that, if it's in the Constitution, it covers all of us everywhere in the USA. And Rudy is WAY too good a lawyer not to know better IMO.
well the marriage ammendment issue is a deal breaker issue.
Unlike RKBA, marriage is one of those common law things which need to be protected by incorporation.
Adoption did not even exist as a matter of law until codified.
It is just the opposite with marriage where it is the common law being codified.
I would also go easy of the DOJ lawyer praise, most of them are Nifongs.
forgot to add, marriage is long established as a federal AND full faith and credit.
Federal for multiple reasons INCLUDING immigration. This is very important given our border protection issues and the fact that marring a US citizen can essential bypass all excludability issues withing eight months. (ie even a convicted drug dealer)
The full faith and credit issues are well documented with the lamda legal efforts to impse homosexual based marriage via Full faith and credit.