States differ on a variety of details, such as first cousins and allowable ages.

It's not so much of a "states rights" thing, as the federal government does not issue marriage licenses in the first place.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) (Pub.L. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419, enacted September 21, 1996, 1 U.S.C. § 7 and 28 U.S.C. § 1738C) is a United States federal law that defines marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman. The law passed both houses of Congress by large majorities and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton (who now, along with many of the law's former proponents, wishes to see it repealed) on September 21, 1996.
Under the law, no state or other political subdivision of the U.S. may be required to recognize as a marriage a same-sex relationship considered a marriage in another state. Section 3 of DOMA codifies the non-recognition of same-sex marriage for all federal purposes, including insurance benefits for government employees, Social Security survivors' benefits, and the filing of joint tax returns. This section has been found unconstitutional in two Massachusetts court cases and a California bankruptcy court case, all of which are under appeal. The Obama administration announced in 2011 that it had determined that Section 3 was unconstitutional and, though it would continue to enforce the law, it would no longer defend it in court. In response, the House of Representatives undertook the defense of the law on behalf of the federal government in place of the Department of Justice (DOJ).


there's a lot more to this -- my rights -- the rights of the minority in this particular case should not be voted on like this.
i find a kind of soft bigotry to the thinking that keeps this a states rights issue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/14th_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution


he Fourteenth Amendment (Amendment XIV) to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868, as one of the Reconstruction Amendments.
Its Citizenship Clause provides a broad definition of citizenship that overruled the Dred Scott v. Sandford ruling by the Supreme Court (1857) that had held that blacks could not be citizens of the United States.[1]
Its Due Process Clause prohibits state and local governments from depriving persons of life, liberty, or property without certain steps being taken to ensure fairness. This clause has been used to make most of the Bill of Rights applicable to the states, as well as to recognize substantive and procedural rights.
Its Equal Protection Clause requires each state to provide equal protection under the law to all people within its jurisdiction. This clause was the basis for Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the Supreme Court decision which precipitated the dismantling of racial segregation in United States education. In Reed v. Reed (1971), the Supreme Court ruled that laws arbitrarily requiring sex discrimination violated the Equal Protection Clause.

Non-uniformity among state marriage laws goes well beyond this particular issue.

In your own words, do you believe that all states should, or should not, permit marriages between first cousins? It's an about an even split right now. What does federal policy have to say about it?

DOMA is a federal law which says that states don't have to recognized same sex marriages in other states, and that the federal government does not recognize them. It does not regulate the marriage laws of any state as applied to its citizens. That observation should be apparent, since some states recognize them and some don't.

there's regulating marriage and then there's denying me my full status as a united states citizen.

cause i've seen nothing from the interview being quoted that says that.

married, that he sees people on his staff who are gay and in loving relationships, and that he USED to think that civil unions were good enough, but now he realizes they should be allowed to marry like everyone else. He also talked about how troops can now serve openly, and that they should be able to marry. The whole reason that this is such a big deal is that he has now come out for marriage equality. NOT just for states which vote for it, but for everyone. If you choose to believe otherwise, go right ahead. But you'd be wrong.

http://www.thenation.com/blog/167798/obama-endorses-gay-marriage-kinda-now-what

'Obama, however, stopped short of lending full support to the multi-state legal and political campaign for marriage equality. According to ABC News, the President stressed that his is a “personal position,” and he continues to think that states should decide the issue independently.'

you're right. I didn't see that. My bad.

marriage equality is a states rights issue.

http://www.thenation.com/blog/167798/obama-endorses-gay-marriage-kinda-now-what

I am not overly impressed with this one.

he's in for the fight. That's all that matters now. It's forward to our ultimate victory with the President of the United States out in front and taking the fire.

That goes for anyone who sees the light on this.

Anyway, I don't think it's all one or the other. The timing of the announcement was political to be sure, but I do think there was a personal evolution as well.

That is incredibly important. He is in office doing this. Everyone else (Cheney, Clinton) supported it AFTER. Without consequences. There a lot of people who still deeply believe in discrimination against gay rights.

...executive branch overreach, the drug "war," wilderness protection, and many more issues awaiting his.... well, personal evolution!

He also needs to shore up his Left, and Gay Rights bones seem to be his favorite tool of choice.

Glad for his statement, but I did not care for his "States Rights" weasel.

every move is a political move, of that there can be no doubt. Yet some movements are good and some bad. Human rights is a movement we can all get behind. Today the POTUS (not just some Joe on the street as he was in 1996) said he believes in human rights. Political move or not, it will be defined as a first.