The United States is a nation founded on the principles of liberty and the ability for the states to be self-governing over their respective territories within the country.

America is a federal democracy that follows the principle of federalism, or the decentralization of the powers of government and giving those powers respectively to local, state and the national government.

The Supreme Court on April 28 took up the case of Obergefell v. Hodges, which debates the legality of Ohio’s constitutional ban on gay marriage.

The case focuses on whether Ohio’s constitutional ban on gay marriage violates due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment, and if the ban violates the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. constitution by not recognizing a marriage of a same-sex couple from another state, according to supremecourt.gov.

People tend to view the issue of whether to allow same sex couples to marry as more of a black or white issue.

I believe that this issue should not be seen as a black and white issue, but as many different shades of grey.

The more conservative justices raised questions, according to the New York Times. Justice Antonin Scalia raised the point on how same sex marriage is so new and asked the pro side whether they knew any society before the Netherlands in 2001, which have made same sex marriage legal.

Justice Scalia stated, “The issue, of course, is not whether there should be same-sex marriage, but who should decide the point.”

I agree with Justice Scalia entirely. The people who reside within the respective states of our union, should decide on the issue of whether the people agree with the right of same sex couples to marry or not.

I also believe that the states with same sex marriage bans need to respect the union of two couples who marry in a state that allows same sex marriage.

Article 4 of the United States Constitution makes it clear that each state needs to respect the laws of a sister state, according to Cornell Law’s website.

So if a gay couple marries in a state that has a law permitting the two to marry, then a state that has a constitutional ban on same sex marriage is obligated to recognize the same sex couple as married under the law.

The full faith and credit clause of the U.S. Constitution assures same sex married couples the ability to be recognized as married in those states respectively.

I believe this is a way to achieve a compromise between the conservatives and the liberals. With this compromise, we can assure the rights of same sex married couples who reside in states with constitutional bans the recognition they deserve. We also allow for the conservative states to retain their own moral compass on the issue of gay marriage within the borders of their state.

The U.S. Constitution is one of the most intelligent founding documents of compromise ever written, and it only takes the people to decide whether to take advantage of the powers of the constitution.

Maybe it is time for the conservative movement to change their old ways of opposing gay marriage on a moral level. Maybe it is time to make this a state’s rights issue with the guarantee they will follow their own battle cry and protect constitutional principles by recognizing the full faith and credit clause of the U.S. constitution.

It’s time for a new tune from the conservative movement in order for the movement to remain relevant in a forever-changing nation.