Re this post:
If you like it, call it "federalism" and use it to argue against the Federal Marriage Amendment.
If you don't like it, call it "state's rights", which is decried because Southern states tried to use it to avoid outside intervention wrt slavery.
Let's cut the crap. IMO the institution of marriage is orders of magnitude more important than abstractions like "federalism", so if I'm forced to choose between them, the sanctity of marriage as our society has known it for centuries wins every time. I'm still waiting for someone to explain how the door you open to permit gay marriage can be closed again to keep out all manner of other associations.
We have contracts for stuff like this, and we can even standardize them into "civil unions".
But marriage? No way.
If you support gay marriage, say so and argue the merits. Don't hide behind federalism/state's rights with the slaveholders.