I don't understand why anyone isn't taking the Federalist approach and saying that contracts valid in one state have to be recognized by all other states in the Union. People keep thinking marriage is a religious institution - it's not - weddings are religious, the marriage CONTRACT is completely civil. The funny part is that a federalist argument is one even Scalia would agree with and is at the very core of our Constitution. It's a strict constructionist way of thinking.

The other issue is we're talking about contracts written by states that were all part of the original 13 colonies. While Utah was forced to change their definition of marriage to join the Union, the original 13 colonies were never expected to change - they define what is fundamentally "American"... I think it's funny how people who live in 20 year old tract homes are trying to lecture people who live in 200 year old homes about what "traditional" means and why it's important.