In a post today Andrew Sullivan argues that, on the issue of gay marriage, we should "let the states decide" and links to a New York Times article which claims that, because the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution was not used to legalize interracial marriage, gay marriage will not be nationalized as a result of gay marriages in Massachusetts.

Nonsense, I say. Just because the Full Faith and Credit clause was not used that way in the past gives no real indication that it won't be used that way today by activist judges. Certainly, there's very little stopping them from doing so.

This leaves me with a question and a challenge for Mr. Sullivan:

Question: If, as you claim, marriage for homosexuals is a "human right", then how could it possibly be right for some states to deny that right? Is it not true that the sudden enthusiasm for Federalism on the part of most gay marriage advocates is, in fact, a result of the realization that if gay marriage is legalized in one state, it will be imposed upon all the others? Is it not the case that you're merely trying to "run out the clock" with every nonsense argument you can find until gay marriage becomes a fait accompli, at which point you will shout for people opposed to gay marriage to "move on" and cry over the possibility of gay couples being "forcibly divorced"?

Second, as to the Full Faith and Credit clause, I offer a challenge to Mr. Sullivan:

I will bet you $250 USD that, within one year of the first legal gay marriages being performed in Massachusetts, a court (or other legal authority, such as an Attorney General) will cite the Full Faith and Credit clause in legally recognizing Massachusetts gay marriages in their own state. I know for a fact that Mr. Sullivan is far richer than I. How about it? Are you willing to back up your claims with dollars?