“one looks at the Constitution, it does not give the Federal government power to play a role in marriage”
This is false.
Reynolds vs the US states very clearly that one man one woman has always been the law of the land in the US and that the federal government must have a consistant definition. Same principle behind Lincolns, “a house divided”.
There cannot be two laws, one saying slaves are a person, and one saying slaves are not a person. It is the same with the definition of marriage. If there are two laws, then there can be three. Sharia.
I used to hold your position until I read the Reynolds decision. As far as I know I’ve not ran into anyone else who’s actually read the decision and understood why it is crucial to this issue.
I have an article published last may talking about this precise issue. I predicted DOMA would get struck down due to faulty constitutional understanding. I maintain that now.
I’m a little faulty on the constitution. Could you please quote the part where the feds have any authority over marriage.
Not the court case, the actual constitution.
Thanx.
I’ll have to take a look at Reynolds. Did the minority mention this in their dissent? I am going to try to take a closer look at the court’s writing over the weekend, because it seems like Kennedy went way beyond writing a decision and make some pretty extensive statements in judgement of both elected officials and citizens. I am a little surprised to see Kennedy go this direction.