The problem is, people move, and doing so cannot invalidate a binding legal agreements they previously made elsewhere. That is why the Full Faith and Credit Clause exists, which in turn is why even ONE state legalizing gay marriage became so contentious nationally. Many states consequently tried to head it off at the pass by refusing to marry out of state couples, but as time passes and their married gay residents move the Full Faith and Credit Caluse must inevitably invalidate gay marriage bans in state after state. In that respect, the Windsor case is a horrible test, because no state is constitutionally required to give full faith and credit to CANADIAN laws, only to give equal protection under its own laws to everyone within its borders.


You are illustrating the double standard: Anyone can own a gun OR marry a member of their own sex with equal ease—if it is legal. Rationalizing ANY ban by saying it equally affects those unaffected is nonsense. The only difference is the Constitution clearly stating, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" but stating no such explicit absolute right to marry. Marriage is left to the states, though they are constitutionally bound to give equal protection under all their laws, and full faith and credit to valid legal agreements from other states. However, that applies at least as much to gun licenses as to marriage licenses, since, once again, the latter has inherent constitutional protection the latter lacks.