Bleys, good point. I'm pretty much split on this issue. I've learned new things about the issue that have made me change my position, then change again, and so on and so forth. I've decided just to remain neutral.

I mean, on one half the religious side of me kicks in and says that since marriage is a religious ceremony, getting married under the pretense of what is considered a sin in said religion is hypocritical at best. My logic tells me that since gay couples can't reproduce, they shouldn't be given the rights that are given to straight couples to help them support their families.

However, this all takes away the "Human-ness" of it. It just wouldn't feel right to have a national ban placed on something like this. I WAS for civil union, until I realized that it didn't grant them...anything. I think if I was forced to make a decision, I'd say leave it up to the states.

-Just my two cents.

Valhall-

This is where the law is grey. Some see the similarity between professional licensing, some see polygamy, while others, like myself, look at current practices. My marriage must be recognized in all other states without regard to my hetero status - it stands to reason that because my marriage has already set precedent - gay marriages would follow. The differences in interpretation set in motion the wheels of litigation. Hence the courts and eventually SCOTUS will have to weigh in.


From an ACLU archive:

The ACLU believes that anti-gay marriage laws violate the "Full Faith and Credit" clause of the U.S. Constitution, which states: "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records and judicial Proceedings of every other State." The idea behind this clause was to make sure that in a nation where people could freely move from state to state, each state would respect each others laws. In other words, final court decisions of one state -- including Hawaii's -- must be recognized by other states.

Moreover, the ACLU believes these laws violate equal protection, since they seek to discriminate against lesbian and gay Americans based on homophobia. The laws also violate the right to interstate travel under Supreme Court precedent, which has held that a state cannot discriminate against people entering its territory by imposing unconstitutional conditions on the right to enter.

It is because of Full Faith and Credit and guarantees under the 14th amendment of "equal protection" that I forsee this ending up in SCOTUS. There is too much at stake here with regard to these two sections of the constitution.

This is why I think to circumvent the courts you will see a concerted effort to pass and ratify a constitutional amendment on this issue.

B.

They should Ban gay marriage in every state except California since we do have San Francisco

Thats why states want to issue civil unions instead of marriages. Unions have not had precedents set for them. I think it is fair that an ammendment come up since its inevitable that the feds will touch this that will protect the will of the people.