thescarsareontheinside-deactiva asked: I've seen your solution and that's actually rather silly. That talks about avoiding a federal ban or approved, yes, but it doesn't contribute one way or the other. What about within a state, you know? It doesn't help the GOP, they would still be against gay marriage on a state level. But marriage was always about who owns what and who is with who-not being one in the eyes of the Lord in any culture.

That solution wouldn’t hurt the GOP. If it’s a state issue, then it has no bearing on what a prospective presidential candidate thinks of gay marriage since it’s none of his business. The issue would never be brought up again if it were a state issue. Just like today, we won’t have presidential candidates weighing in on what they think the age of consent should be—16, 17, 8—because that’s a state issue. Some states set their age of consent at age 16, some at 18. If Mitt Romney or Barack Obama, for example, say they believe the age of consent should be 17, who cares? It’s their opinion and it has nothing to do with the federal office since it’s a state issue.

Plus, the solution I laid out is the only constitutional solution.