_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
Places over which the United States have exclusive control. And that means especially NOT the states.
It means what the Congress determines, not you or the court... (the supremacy clause). Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act and it was by this reasoning a federal judge recently overturned the Massachusetts pervert court.
Kiddie porn is illegal and the feds have been busting them all over the country. In fact, the feds have been going after the polygynists and prosecute people married to more than one person in many states. It is not exclusively a state issue at all...
Since most religious organizations are also I.R.S. 501(c) tax-exempt and marriage being a religious “practice,” the federal government also has a ‘compelling interest’ to regulate such “practice.”
So, is it your intent to legalize pervert marriages?
My intent was to show you that you misread Reynolds. No more, no less.
Marriage is a religious practice that can be regulated by statute alone.
No kidding, but so what? That doesn't mean that *Congress* gets to regulate it for the *states*. You're taking a case which simply says that religious belief does not justify lawbreaking, and you're tarting it up as some sort of proof that the federal government has authority to ban gay marriage in all 50 states. Hello? The case was about a territorial marriage law, not state marriage law. Can you read?
It means what the Congress determines, not you or the court.
Congress can write marriage laws for D.C., and maybe for Guam or American Samoa or something like that. It can't write marriage laws for the states, no matter how hard you stamp your feet and wish that it were otherwise.
Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act
Again, so what? DOMA doesn't regulate, determine, or change substantive state laws in any manner. DOMA pretty much just restates the meaning of the Full Faith and Credit clause. Congress couldn't change the meaning of the clause even if it wanted to--it couldn't and it didn't. The states were free to make whatever marriage laws they wanted before DOMA was passed, and they're still free to make whatever marriage laws they want today. Even *before* DOMA was passed, states didn't have to recognize out-of-state marriages that were contrary their own policy preferences, and they still don't have to recognize such marriages today. DOMA's essentially a no-shit-sherlock law; it changed nothing.
Really, if you want gay marriage banned throughout the states, it's going to take a constitutional amendment, your misreadings of Reynolds and DOMA to the contrary notwithstanding.
Do you have more details on this? I missed it.