Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: SeekAndFind

The question is not about our personal opinions on marriage. The question is about the law. The US Constitution makes no reference to marriage. Therefore the regulation of marriage was left to the states. States do in fact regulate marriage. The age at when a person can marry is regulated. The age at when a person can marry with or without parental consent varies from state to state. Can first cousins marry? Can second or third cousins marry? Can a one person have more than one spouse? Utah permitted once permitted polygamy, but later outlawed to gain admission into the union. Fact is this is a STATE issue. What is there to discuss?????


11 posted on 03/27/2013 7:56:00 AM PDT by Trapped Behind Enemy Lines
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Trapped Behind Enemy Lines

What is left is federal marital status since states have differing laws. There is conflict between DOMA and states that allow gay marriage. That conflict has to be dealt with and fed rules established on how to classify couples for tax and benefit purposes.


21 posted on 03/27/2013 8:18:20 AM PDT by plain talk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]

To: Trapped Behind Enemy Lines

What is left is federal marital status since states have differing laws. There is conflict between DOMA and states that allow gay marriage. That conflict has to be dealt with and fed rules established on how to classify couples for tax and benefit purposes.


41 posted on 03/27/2013 8:47:31 AM PDT by plain talk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]

To: Trapped Behind Enemy Lines
Fact is this is a STATE issue. What is there to discuss?????

As Mark Levin said last evening, they want to constantly take another bite at the apple. That is, they are not happy with the results that come from state wide ballot initiatives (even in California!) so their next "bite" comes by going to the courts, and they keep "biting" all the way up to the Supreme Court.

46 posted on 03/27/2013 8:56:35 AM PDT by zzeeman ("We can evade reality, but we cannot evade the consequences of evading reality.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]

To: Trapped Behind Enemy Lines; All

“Fact is this is a STATE issue. What is there to discuss?????”

Whether a state that DOES NOT recognize or allow a homosexual union/marriage in their juridiction should have to recognize one done in another state?

Hence the necessity of DOMA. Because of “full faith and credit” in the COTUS, it makes it an important issue that goes beyong a state’s borders.

What good is it for one state to forbid or not recognize a homosexual union IF a “couple” can cross state lines to get recognized elsewhere and then come back home?

Personnally, I don’t think ANY state should be able to have homosexual marriage that confers the same benefits/rights that hetereosexual marriage does for tax and other reasons.

Our states going to have to institute “reciprocity” agreements between states on all marriages because of the homosexuals? I am afraid so. Maybe we need to do so. I have never liked “Vegas” marriages anyway. It is a problem though.

DOMA needs to stand to prevent chaos.


62 posted on 03/27/2013 9:30:51 AM PDT by Sola Veritas (Trying to speak truth - not always with the best grammar or spelling)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]

To: Trapped Behind Enemy Lines

Not quite that simple. The Supreme Court has held marriage is a fundemwntal right several times. So if a state says Only Mormons can marry. Would that be constitutional in your eyes?


81 posted on 03/27/2013 11:19:23 AM PDT by chopperjc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson