Currently, marriage is up to the states along with divorce. That's why Nevada is known for the 'Las Vegas divorce'. So he's right about it being a states issue, at least at this point.
Should it be a federal issue? That's a tough one. That involves overriding the individual states and the Constitution does spell out that certain rights are reserved for the states. Article X of the Amendments:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Nowhere in the Constitution does it say the federal government has the right to regulate marriage. So that means it's not as simple as it looks at first. To add fed protection for gay marriage will mean a Constitutional amendment, like the one defining marriage that was proposed a while back (and thankfully was never passed). Why do I say that? There are some states which (at the current time) are gonna squeal like stuck pigs at the idea of the feds telling them to let gays marry. There will also be states squealing about being told only hetero marriages are allowed. There will be lawsuits aplenty filed from both sides and that will slow things up even longer.
nocones has given what is, to me, the right answer: ditch the 'marriage' thing entirely and replace it with 'civil union' for everyone. The problem is to get each state to go along with it. I think it will happen eventually but it will involve pulling the churches out of the question and that will be the tough part. Currently, each state must respect the laws of the others meaning that if gays get married in State A then State B must recognize it.
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
So Congress can regulate the recording of such issues but cannot override them. But Congress will try to overstep its boundaries at times and the states generally smack 'em upside the head. That's been an ongoing battle for ages, BTW; it was the basis for South Carolina seceding from the Union way back when. The state government said the feds could not abolish slavery. The feds said otherwise. Thus the 'recent unpleasantness'. 
http://www.worldandi.com/civilwar/default.asp?action=full
FWIW, when I moved back to Columbia, an old acquaintance of mine got married in the first gay church ceremony ever held in Columbia. Picture in the paper and everything. It shows how times have changed here in the buckle of the Bible Belt. Heck, maybe one day we atheists will be openly accepted too. 
i just say its a federal issue because if the fed accepts gay marriage then insurance companies will cover same sex partners as a whole. federal taxes returns. military pensions, any fed job pension ect ect ect. if the fed accepts those things the states will quickly follow suit.
In reply to JoeyM:
well i dont understand the 1930's jap car either but i still think your project is badassery at its finest. i cant make sense of my gender and sexuality from an anylitical standpoint but i know what i am. if i think about it even i get confuzzled. lol
In reply to KATYB:
Right, I understand. But the problem is the fed sticking their nose into what is a state issue, that typically does not go well. Besides the Civil War, there's plenty of other examples of that problem.
So the states need to get this straightened out. What's screwing that up is the refusal of some to accept a 'marriage' between same sex partners. The way around that: as nocones suggested, EVERYONE gets a 'civil union' in the eyes of the law which guarantees the same rights/responsibilities regardless of orientation. If a couple chooses to also get 'married' in their church, then let 'em have at it.
Problem solved. But the hangup (on both sides) is on that word 'marriage'.
As a white Christian married male, I'll say this. I believe that govt shouldn't define what marriage is period, or grant special privileges to those that are married.
I sorta agree ... but where do we draw the line ?
such as ins for "married/family" ... I'm not even going to get into the income tax filing ... then there's inheritance if someone dies without leaving a will ???
as far as a civil union goes .... I say have at it ... but just the word civil brings the idea of government involvement back into the pic
Someone posted a pretty funny (and relevant) quote on the facebook the other day, and it was something like "Saying I can't get married because it's against your religion is like saying I can't eat a donut because you're on a diet.". So true.
on the issue of against my religion and useing christianity...... read..... http://anthropologist.livejournal.com/1314574.html
You'll need to log in to post.
