I think this is a special case because it's about civil liberties; something that is protected on a federal level. New Hampshire, for example, can't vote to prohibit black people from voting. The federal government won't allow it. States have the right to set laws, but within boundaries. Otherwise they'd all just be little countries that are just allied to each other.
It's important for the federal government to step in when local governments fail to adequately protect or serve their citizens. In this case, we're talking about the civil liberties and rights of american citizens who are being forbidden from things that the majority of the rest of us are free to both enjoy and abuse.
I agree that states should be allowed to set laws for themselves, but some things really should be protected federally, and civil liberties is definitely one of them. It's important to keep certain states from making un-american or unconstitutional decisions.
Blah, this needs it's own thread, this is getting a bit off topic.
I know what Romney's website says. I also know that in 1994 he claimed he'd
be better than Ted Kennedy on Gay Rights. The guy says what he needs to say, when he needs to say it, for very calculated gains. I mean it when I say that not only do we not know what he truly thinks, I don't think he does either. He's so deep in the machine that it's entirely possible he's just a mish-mash of talking points.
Not saying this doesn't apply to Obama. I've personally always thought he was an atheist and just says all that god stuff to throw us off the scent and stay president. I'm not sure which I'd prefer; if he was a liar, or really that religious. I'll never know, of course. I wonder if he does.