Stare decisis does not apply to Roe any more than it would to Dred Scott. But I am not arguing the states rights opinion. You are.
I don't find the right to life a matter that can be left up to individual states any more than I think they can decide to kill the babies of conservatives.
The point is that marriage can not be a state issue because the federal government is intertwined inextricably with marriage.
The notion that a couple of guys wed in Mass and then move to Alabama not having SCOTUS backing based on equal protection is one I find ridiculous on its face.
To: hunter112The Federal government isn't "intertwined inextricably with marriage," any more than it is intertwined with a specific business's purchase order.
The point is that marriage can not be a state issue because the federal government is intertwined inextricably with marriage. The notion that a couple of guys wed in Mass and then move to Alabama not having SCOTUS backing based on equal protection is one I find ridiculous on its face.
# 512 by jwalsh07
***********************
The many States are required to recognize the legal contracts made within any other State, but that doesn't give the Federal government any power over the exercise of any contract.
I'm in full agreement. But so was Dred Scott. To gays and liberals, Bowers vs. Hardwick was their Dred Scott decision, and it was only a matter of time before the SCOTUS saw it differently. By denying the full humanity of unborn children, black people and homosexuals, these three decisions have had something in common, if you choose to look at them that way.
The point is that marriage can not be a state issue because the federal government is intertwined inextricably with marriage.
Only because of tax law (think joint filing) and entitlement programs (like Social Security). The entwinement began with state socialism, and the conferring of benefits. That might be the reason the Constitution is silent on the question of marriage. An FMA would no longer make it so.
I'd like to point out something you stated in an earlier post, about the moral basis of the Constitution. Those same Framers claimed the rights to "life, liberty and property" for themselves without extending those rights to blacks, women, and non-property owners. In short, their "moral vision" was somewhat limited. It's easy for the gays to make the argument that while it was indisputable that gay marriage was not forseen by the Framers, neither was a society without slavery, where women could own property rather than be property, or that a non-property owning class would become a major part of this country.