Lindsay Orman’s column about the same-sex marriage amendment completely misses the fundamental point on this issue.
She asserted that definitions of and legislation about marriage are best dealt with on a state-by-state basis so as to reflect the will of the people on a regional basis.
However, legal scholars have pointed out that if a liberal state like Massachusetts chooses to recognize gay marriages, gay couples will flock to that state solely to get married, return to their home states, and proceed to challenge their state laws as being inconsistent on federal constitutional grounds with the “Full Faith and Credit” clause.
Article IV, Section 1, of our Constitution 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 that homosexual marriage might be contained to a few liberal states like Massachusetts is completely untenable because of this “marriage anywhere, marriage everywhere” principle. A federal amendment for the defense of marriage is the approach supported by most conservatives because the state-by-state approach Orman advocates is nothing more than a Maginot line that gay marriage advocates will simply do an end-run around.