Do you do find gay marriage repulsive?

[Emsworth]

Yes/No

If it was natural and meant to be men could have children with men. That can't happen, it's not natural.

I don't think that this is a logically valid argument. By this reasoning, the marriage of a man with an infertile woman might be deemed "repulsive."

[Emsworth]

Do you think it's within the rights of one state to refuse to recognize a marriage granted in another?

Perhaps not, because the full faith and credit clause is implicated when a state refuses to recognize that another state has ordained the marriage. Furthermore, a state cannot deny benefits to out-of-state couples merely on the grounds that they are from another state, under the privileges and immunities clause (of Article IV).

However, that does not mean that a state cannot deny benefits on other grounds. For example, Alabama cannot say "People wedded in Massachussetts will be denied benefits," but they can say "Same-sex couples 'wedded' anywhere will be denied benefits."

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The commerce clause does not authorize the regulation of "anything remotely related to commerce" (which basically means "anything at all," because everything can be said to "have an impact" on interstate commerce). It only authorizes the regulation of commerce itself: "The Congress shall have Power ... To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes."

Marriage may be remotely related to commerce, but it is not commerce.

[Emsworth]

By current judicial interpretations of the Commerce Clause (say what you like about it, it's still established law), the Commerce Clause does indeed apply in this case.  PA's and DE's recognition of a same sex marriage granted in NJ effects pension distibutions, health insurance, estate planning, and all sorts of other commercial activity, across state lines.  The Commerce Clause has been invoked to justify federal legislation on much flimsier grounds than this, and has been so for at least 70 years.

Has Commerce (I can never remember whether it's spelled with a c or an s, but maybe that's because I read too much UKian lit) been over-extended?  I certainly think so.  But under currently settled law, Congress does have the right to regulate this.

Of course, the settled law may be that Congress can regulate almost anything at all under the interstate commerce clause. That does not mean that the settled interpretation is constitutionally sound. After all, Roe v. Wade is also settled, yet hardly sound; the same could be said at one time of Plessy v. Ferguson. In any event, the Rehnquist Court has thankfully taken a more appropriate approach to commerce clause cases, and has struck down the most egregious examples of congressional overreaching.

[Emsworth]

In any event, the Rehnquist Court has thankfully taken a more appropriate approach to commerce clause cases, and has struck down the most egregious examples of congressional overreaching.

You mean like they did in Ashcroft v. Raich?

No I was referring of course to Morrison and Lopez. Raich was an abomination.

[Emsworth]

All of the court's liberals (Ginsburg, Stevens, Souter, Breyer) and two conservatives (Kennedy, Scalia).

I was not surprised by Kennedy, who is almost a liberal anyway. However, I found Scalia's view very exceptional. His concurrence is quite disappointing.