Do you do find gay marriage repulsive?

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

I personally do not care what people do with one another, but I fear the wrath of God, and therefore cannot support gay marriage.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Yes/No

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

Is masturbation 'unnatural'?

Do people marry their right hand?

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

No/Don't Care it is a States Rights Issue

Do you think it's within the rights of one state to refuse to recognize a marriage granted in another?  That opens a huge can of worms.

I'd say that marriage recognition has such a huge impact on interstate trade (for example, consider the gay couple married and living in NJ, but one works in Philadelphia, and the other works in Wilmington, and they want to get marriage benefits in all three states) that Congress is within its rights to regulate that recognition under the Commerse Clause.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

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.

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.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

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?

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Raich was an abomination.

You'll get no argument from me.