On one point I am uncomfortable. The time for Congress to take a stand on the issues of Constitutionality is when they propose and before they pass the illegal legislation. The President if he (or she) considers the bill improper, should veto it. If passed by a previous Congress and improperly signed by a prior President, the current President should ask Congress for a repeal.

Perhaps there is a place for an Executive Order in this matter, but tolerating and leaving an arbitrary decision as to which laws to enforce and which not to enforce up to a single person, I think also carries with it a great deal of risk, in elevating the rule of man over the rule of law.

Even action by the states I think has more standing in establishing the unenforcability of federal law within that state's borders, than does the idea of the executive branch exercising selective discretion in law enforcement.

The other issue is the one Derek raises, recognition of marriages across state lines. But I'm not sure that matters so much either. The example of federal employee benefits is always a federal decision anyway. So if the feds recognize same sex couples for a specific benefit, they can receive that regardless of where they live. That is a contract between the fed employer and the employee. In fact, the same thing already happens in the private sector. I used to work for a company that provides health insurance and other benefits to same sex "domestic" partners. The company operates in multiple states and those same benefits extend to employees in every state, regardless of the states definition of marriage.

If states make their own decisions on how to define and recognize marriage, they can also decide how they will handle "married" couples from other states that define it differently. Much like conceal carry. If I have a Kentucky conceal carry, Florida law allows me to carry there under reciprocity agreements. New York – if I'm not mistaken, does not. So…if I wanna carry, I don't go to New York.

Of course, those who lobby for same-sex marriage will argue that all of the states MUST accept it under the 14th Amendment, equal protection. I would reject this argument. The 14th Amendment has nothing to do with marriage – same sex or otherwise.

Derek brings up good points. However, as I see it, if we got government, at all levels, out of marriage (or civil unions) all together it would solve the problem. Why do we need any government to approve of marriage (essentially a contract w/religious origins)? Why do we need government to approve of civil unions (essentially a contract)?

Decouple marriage from economics. A person pays for a license (contract) from the state to receive legal protection under common law, but end the special economic privileges (specifically tax benefits). That contract is legalling binding in all states, right? We don't need to re-define marriage or make a new class of people, we need to recognize and protect contract rights.

If a federal employee residing in a state that recognizes same sex marriage produces a marriage license in order to enroll their spouse in a federal program or obtain federal benefits as the spouse of a federal employee or beneficiary, it seems pretty simple. The federal government must treat them as they would the spouse of a heterosexual union. But what if the federal employee or person due federal benefits resides in a state that does not recognize same sex marriage, but can produce a marriage license from another state that does?

If each state has the authority to define marriage within its own boundaries, under the Constitution, and the federal government must recognize two (or more?) people as being married if a state recognizes the union, how will this be worked out by federal bureaucrats, given that states will have different and sometimes contradictory laws regulating marriage?