The question is not “can states ban same-sex marriage?”
The question is, “can states permit same-sex marriage?”
Indeed. And the answer is “no,” they cannot.
The “decision” is not up to federal judges or to the states. God already decided, from the beginning of the creation.
Walker shows himself to be a judicial supremacist, one who has no understanding of the natural law basis of this free republic.
We don’t need a Constitutional amendment to enforce the laws of nature and nature’s God. We just need representatives who understand, and who have the courage to do their duty to God and country by telling usurping, out-of-control judges to go to hell.
Homosexual marriage simply doesn't exist. There is no precedent for it, and it's backed by millennia of laws, findings, and research.
All these states that had constitutional amendments had to do was disregard the federal judges that struck it down.
Look what Justice Moore did in AL. He took action and stood up for the state while the Governor hid underneath somebody's skirt.
My preferred candidate is Ted Cruz.
Re: Scott Walker and same-sex marriage -
Under current court rulings striking down states on same-sex marriage, and under a coming SCOTUS ruling almost certain to make a sweeping determination that there’s a Constitutional right to same-sex marriage, the question then DOES become, “can states ban same-sex marriage?”
Walker appears to be advancing his own belief that states have the right to define marriage. Under the Tenth Amendment they certainly do. By banning all but heterosexual marriage between one man and one woman, that WAS where most states stood on this, until Holder refused to follow the Defense of Marriage Act, and until federal courts started knocking down states like dominos on this issue. Federal Courts nor any other federal branch were given that power, therefore it devolves to the states.
I don’t see a problem with Scott Walker on this issue. His stance is absolutely the correct and courageous one.
Walker is being criticized by some for allowing a court decision to decide it for Wisconsin. In other words for not standing for nullification, civil disobedience, resistance - whatever one calls it - when federal courts usurp states powers.
What he might be trying to do is use states to amend the Constitution to actually spell out in precise words that states are the ones to decide this issue, by making it an agenda item if a Fifth Amendment Convention of the States does happen (see Mark Levin’s “The Liberty Amendments”), to put such a proposed amendment in play, there.
That seems to be where he’s heading on this. What other venue could produce an amendment that says the states, only, can define marriage, besides that one?
In the meantime, let’s compare his position on whether to obey, or to nullify, a federal court ruling on this issue, with positions of other candidates on the same thing.
Let’s compare apples to apples.
>>The question is, “can states permit same-sex marriage?”
Marriage is an historically observable state-established mechanism for regulating sociobiological/reproductive competitiveness among competing cultures.
In that context, same-sex “marriage” has what effect?