Then again, there is the Art I Sect IV which gurantees that the federal government will provide a "republican" form of government for all the states, and I am not talking about gay marriage.
This could mean that with the XIVA, you could claim that with the Ad. I and Art I Sect. IV, that free speech would be indoctrinated into XIVA because it is needed to assure that all americans citizens have a republican form of government at the state level, whateve that means. Though Art.I Sec.IV has been pretty thoroughly ignored since the 1840s by judges "making things up" to make loop holes in it.
"Republican form of Government" for all States means that the States shall be set up as a Republic which is based on the Rule of Law, as opposed to a Democracy, which is based on the Rule of Man.
I'm fairly certain that this inane definition of "Republic" -not found outside the US of A - postdates 1789.
Here's what the Wiki has to say:
Clause 1: Republican government
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government...
This clause, sometimes referred to as the Guarantee Clause, while somewhat obscure today, has historically been a part of the debate about the rights of citizens vis-a-vis state governments. No explanation is offered in the Constitution as to what constitutes a republican government; it may have been intended to mean nothing more than that no state could erect a monarchy (a threat that might have seemed more realistic in 1787 than it does today).
A crisis in 1840s Rhode Island, the Dorr Rebellion, forced the Supreme Court to rule on the meaning of this clause. At the time, the state constitution was the old royal charter established in the 17th century, under which most free white males in the state were disenfranchised; an attempt to hold a popular convention to write a new constitution was declared insurrection by the charter government, and the convention leaders were arrested. One of them brought suit in federal courts, arguing that Rhode Island's government was not "republican" in character, and that his arrest (along with all of the government's other acts) were invalid. In Luther v. Borden, 48 U.S. 1 (1849), the Court rejected the notion that the "republican-ness" of states lay within the purview of judicial review, holding that "it rests with Congress to decide what government is the established one in a State ... as well as its republican character." In effect, it held the clause to be non-justiciable.
The ruling did leave it open to Congress to establish guidelines for the republican nature of state governments, however, which became an important part of the initial phases of Reconstruction after the American Civil War. The Radical Republican-led Congress viewed this clause as a tool to shape the governments of the reconquered southern states: they argued that any state that did not offer equality before the law and suffrage for former slaves could not be considered truly "republican," and thus could be denied Congressional representation. With the passage of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, the power of the federal government to safeguard these rights was explicitly added to the Constitution, and this interpretation of Section Four became moot. Indeed, when the Supreme Court revisited some of the territory covered by Luther v. Borden in cases like Baker v. Carr, the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause was the basis of its changed decisions.
Wikipedia, as usual, is not a perfect source:
it may have been intended to mean nothing more than that no state could erect a monarchy
should really be amended to something closer to "obviously, this just means that no state can erect a monarchy".
The 1840 RI suitor, btw, clearly equated "Republican" and "Democratic" (or, at least, "more or less Democratic".)