But that is the structure of Massachusetts' constitution. This is the essence of federalism. It is not the place of the federal government to remedy problems in a state's constitution. No matter how difficult it is, it is still only the problem of the people of that state.
When a state starts making up definitions for words, it becomes the country's business, since the objects in question (those with phony marriage statuses) work in different states and move. If Massachusetts started issuing phony currency in likewise it would also be a national issue.
No it does not. It becomes the business of the other states if Massachusetts does something that has an adverse effect on the other states. As for currency, the Constitution reserves that for the federal government. It is specified as one of the enumerated powers of the Congress.
If you could convince me that it was somehow anti-federalist to support amending the Constitution to not allow a state to pretend that formalized, institutionalized sodomy is worthy of the appellation marriage, then I would conclude federalism is obsolete.
Any restriction placed on a state not specifically the responsibility of the federal government is anti-federalist. There is no danger to the institution of marriage, as every federal court has found. Even the 9th Circuit affirmed that decision. There is no danger that any state will have to recognize the homosexual marriage from any other state. That has been affirmed by courts. So what is the need, other than an emotional concern that one day it might change? Let's all stay out of the business of the individual sovereign states.
I am about as far from a Libertarian as one can get, but in this case they are spot on.
"But that is the structure of Massachusetts' constitution. This is the essence of federalism. It is not the place of the federal government to remedy problems in a state's constitution."
There was NO problem with the Massachusetts state constitution... the problem was with 4 Mass supreme Court justices who wilfully IGNORED the Mass state constitution to make that state imposed gay marriage.
Such a problem exists on the Federal level as well.
"No it does not. It becomes the business of the other states if Massachusetts does something that has an adverse effect on the other states"
Surely, then you are against the Lawrence v Texas decision, which imposed a Federal order on the states, in a matter in which the state was doing something that had no adverse effect on other states. Surely to be fully consistent, you will have to say that Virginia v Loving was also wrongly decided. ...
So, lets say we wok up and realized that the 14th doesnt actually cover the situation of interracial marriage, that it was an intrusion on Federalism and not quite the 'equal protection' issue some think it is, and there was a constitutional amendment proposed forbidding state laws against inter-racial marriage .... would you be for it or against it?
"There is no danger to the institution of marriage, as every federal court has found."
What an absurd comment. You just said it was a state matter, so how can Federal courts be the one to tell us that! ... Obviously w ehave seen several cases undrmining traditional concepts of marriage in states other than the one imposing gay marriage. Full faith and credit clauses comes into play, and hiding behind shallow 'federalism' arguments doesnt cut it.
Your own words make clear why a FMA Constitutional Amendment is ultimately necessary.
The need is for something, ANYthing, to distract the rubes, who have started to take notice of the GOP's miserable record at curtailing tax-and-borrow-and-spend Big Government and its pathetically sub-miserable record at securing the borders.