States Rights and Same Sex Marriage

Good article by Paul Greenburg (Conservative) over at Townhall about these two subjects. He explains why it's a big deal for Mass. to accept Homosexual Marriages (such marriages would, according to the Full Faith and Credit Clause, have to be accepted by all the other states). He comments that if the Full Faith and Credit Clause could be made to not apply to marriage, than we could allow states to come up with their own answers.

"But so long as Massachusetts does not force the rest of us to go along with its supreme court on this issue, surely the Union can abide this exercise of states' rights, or even a state's wrongs. If we don't have to imitate it, we ought to be able to tolerate it. It is only when such "marriages" in Massachusetts become the law in the rest of the Union that tolerance becomes tyranny.

Some states might like to follow Massachusetts, while others would deny homosexuals the covenant of marriage, and still others - the most sensible and fair, some of us would argue - will offer citizens some form of domestic partnership or civil unions. Not just homosexuals need apply. Think of elderly sisters or trusted friends who want to assure their inheritance or hospital visitation rights. The nature of civil unions could be as varied as, well, the states of the Union. It's a big country. There is no reason to make it a uniform country. That's the genius of states' rights."

The problem is that neither side seems willing to let parts of the country go their own way. Both those who support Same Sex Marriage and those who oppose it think they can win it all; why settle for half a loaf?

Edited to add; changed the title. I initially had the title Homosexual Marriage and States Rights, but thought that sounded clunky, so determined to replace Homosexual Marriage with Same Sex Marriage. I missed and so the title for the morning was Homosexual Marriage and Same Sex Marriage. Oh well.