[Baseballguy]

The answer is that there should be no more Rosevelt benifits at the Federal level no more. Git rid of SS, Food Stamps, Income taxes, Medicare, Fed Reserve, Federal Military, ... well why night remove all budgetary obligations at the Fed level and let States manage their people.

This is why the Civil War was fought. If Lincoln would of tried what he did then now the SCOTUS would have said "NO" States rights.

[Baseballguy]

I was a little excited. States rights have really been the theme here. Please make sure, God has put it in his bible and My state of South Carolina agree what marriage is, Man and Woman. The Fed is where the problem is, not a single instance. Over and over the SCOTUS has said the 10th amendment is more important than any issue.

I look at it is not the Fed position to define a State resident its due payout based on the State not what an IRS agent believes.

[JCBreckenridge]

Reynolds vs the United States explains why Marriage doesn’t fall into this bin.

Reynolds argues that the marriage definition in the united states dates to the colonial period prior to the constitution. the definition - then as now, was one man and one woman, and most importantly, that the federal government had the authority in their jurisdiction to defend the definition of marriage.

They, like with Habeaus Corpus and Trial by Jury do not have the ability to change what these terms mean. But they do have an obligation to protect them within their jurisdiction.

This is why states like Utah could not pass polygamy laws. and the same ruling shuts down MA and all the other sodomite states. It also bars changing the definition.

Read the case.