I’m still not seeing marriage definition there. From a practical standpoint, if the FedGov were the sole authority in defining marriage, then it would also have to be the sole authority to define divorce. It does not, the states do; that’s because its a state issue. Visas and passports are issued by the federal government; marriage certificates are issued by the state.
“I’m still not seeing marriage definition there.”
Again, the Constitution runs on top of the Common Law. The Common Law definition of Marriage has been the law in the United States since well before the Constitution was even enacted. Arguing that “if the Constitution doesn’t mention it renders the existing marriage laws at the time invalid” doesn’t fly.
“From a practical standpoint, if the FedGov were the sole authority in defining marriage”
It’s not. The Federal government doesn’t even have the authority to *define* marriage. It has the power to enforce the definition as one man and one woman. Enforce!= Define.
“then it would also have to be the sole authority to define divorce.”
The need for a uniform standard of marriage doesn’t apply to the laws for dissolving one.
“Visas and passports are issued by the federal government; marriage certificates are issued by the state.”
Yes, and if the federal government issues spousal visas, then it has the authority to define whom constitutes a spouse. This is right in the first article. “Uniform standard of naturalization”, direcly precludes different standards for different states.
Having multiple marriage definitions, simple doesn’t work. The Full Faith and Credit clause renders the states that have passed gay marriage as a legal fiction. They own a document that purports to be something that is not. Now it is possible for a state to attempt to defy federal law, but this is no different from any other occurance.