Yes, it's possible that a state could defy the federal government and refuse a Supreme Court order to enforce the “full faith and credit” clause of the Constitution with regard to homosexual marriages in another state.
It's also possible — maybe even probable — that some county clerk somewhere in a conservative county in a conservative state will absolutely refuse to register two homosexuals who come in to be married, then the state courts refuse to order the clerk to do so, then an initial federal court decision in a conservative circuit finds some loophole not to overturn the state court decision, and the matter ends up at the Supreme Court to determine how the federal government should enforce the “full faith and credit” clause if a legislature, backed by the state constitution and state courts, refuses to change its laws.
The problem becomes how will the executive and legislative branches of the federal government enforce the decision of the federal Supreme Court.
In the real world, it seems quite likely that the first step will be for the federal government to use the power of the purse. Using your terms, “And then the fedgove/courts say ‘Well, we'll with hold Uncle's money from you’ and then the State could say ‘Go ahead, make my day.’ All Uncle's money to the states comes with strings - ropes - whoever pays the piper calls the tune.”
With most things — raising the drinking age, adopting a maximum speed limit, etc. — states have been willing to capitulate and do what the federal government wanted rather than risk losing federal funds.
What will happen if a state flat-out refuses to do so, which could quite realistically happen on homosexual marriage?
Nobody knows the answer to that.
What we do know is that states withholding money from the federal government won't work. How is the legislature of South Carolina or Georgia or Texas going to stop the federal government from collecting taxes from the residents of their state? And given the realities of our interconnected banking system, how could a state — even if it wanted to — protect its residents from having their bank accounts seized for payment of unpaid taxes?
The simple fact is that the federal government has most though not all of the cards in this game. Barring a major collapse of the federal government's financial ability to use the power of the purse to dictate terms to the states, there is very little a few individual states can do to reject federal orders from the court.
Getting the required supermajority of state legislatures and of Congress to pass a federal constitutional amendment that marriage is between a man and a woman probably won't work, either. I am not convinced we had the required majority back when the Defense of Marriage Act was passed, and we sure don't have it now. After all, that's why DOMA was passed because it was very likely a constitutional amendment would fail.
I think the only remaining realistic solution now is a combination of:
1) states refusing to change their definitions of marriage,
2) states refusing to recognize homosexual marriages from other states, hoping the federal courts won't force the issue,
3) a concerted attempt to get conservative Senators elected who can reject bad Supreme Court nominees and confirm good Supreme Court nominees, and
4) if the Supreme Court does something really awful on marriage, trying to impeach one or more of the worst Supreme Court Justices to send a message to the court that the political process will not accept shoving gay marriage down the throats of states that don't want it.
If that doesn't work, and if a financial collapse doesn't happen, I see no realistic way to avoid the federal government forcing its will on the states if it chooses to do so.
The pipe dreams about “Civil War II” are just that — pipe dreams — as long as the federal government has the financial ability to use its carrots of financial incentives and its even more numerous sticks of policing, taxing, and regulating authority, not to even begin to speak of its military power.
Of course a major economic collapse could change that calculus, but if push comes to shove, nothing short of a major economic collapse will make it possible for states to revolt against a federal government determined to force its will on the states with regard to homosexual marriage.
We need to face facts, focus on politics, and hope the federal government will step back and not force its will on the states. The alternatives, while not utterly impossible, are so horrible that we should not even be considering them as realistic options.
Here's how I see it. The fedgov is bloated beyond the wildest nightmare of the founders - it's like a stinking cancer that has metastasized to the point where every single tissue, organ, structural component, gland and hair follical of the social body is fatally ill. Tweaking this little doodad here and hoping for a minute 3 degree change in that little doodad there only prolongs the agony. I can hear the death rattle right now. Your plan or ideas might have merit if EVERY SINGLE OTHER THING THE FEDGOV DOES wasn't already a giant bloated corrupt evil unconstitutional mechanism of utter tyranny.
So therefore, IMHO, complete financial collapse is the best scenario. Otherwise, the corrupt fedgov will continue to use the power of the fiat to destroy the couple of inches left of any shadow resemblence of our original republic.
Homo marriage is just the dingleberry on the crap cake.
“We need to face facts, focus on politics, and hope the federal government will step back and not force its will on the states. The alternatives, while not utterly impossible, are so horrible that we should not even be considering them as realistic options. “
1. It is a fact that the Republican leadership does not wish to fight this battle. Politics is proving to be a dead end.
2. The Federal Government, through the actions of the Supreme Court most recently, has showed a willingness to extend its power.
3. “Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.”