"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.
Well I don't know the exact reason for the ruling, but I notice it was a 4 to 3 decision, indicating that it is a weak one from the getgo. The problem is not the judges, but the legislature. At one point, an overwhelming majority was in favor of an amendment which would cure the issue. From what I read, they seem to be falling by the wayside due to a lack of support from their constituents. That is clearly a fixable problem and does not need a US constitutional amendment.
Such a problem exists on the Federal level as well.
I don't know how. At the federal level, the Defense of Marriage Act protects the federal government and all other states. The legal challenges have all been completely successful.
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.
Lawrence v Texas affirmed that a state cannot deny the same right to privacy the majority enjoys to a select group, even if the majority deplores what that group might be doing in the privacy of their own home. No I don't object to that. All consenting adults have a constitutional right to privacy in their own homes as long as they are not violating the rights of others.
Surely to be fully consistent, you will have to say that Virginia v Loving was also wrongly decided. ...
I absolutely support this decision. You may be confusing my support for the legitimate powers of the states within the framework of the 10th Amendment, with my support for the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment. I support both fully. A state has a legitimate goal of promoting procreation, thus substantiating a need to keep marriage between one man and one woman. It does not infringe on any rights of anyone. Each of the two cases you listed found for the plaintiffs because the states failed to articulate a compelling state interest in the discrimination.
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?
Of course because it violates not only the right to due process, but a fundamental right to equal protection of the law. In this case since procreation is a legitimate state interest, simply refusing someone of different races to marry would not pass the same muster that refusing gays to marry has. You have created a straw man that is composed of different characteristics. For gays, a state can articulate a legitimate reason for banning marriage, for interracial marriage they cannot.
What an absurd comment.
Thanks, but you're more than keeping up.
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.
What a state court does is none of yours or my concern. That is for the people of that state to work out. That is what federalism is all about. As for the FFC clause, the Defense of Marriage Act covers it quite well. No state has to recognize same sex marriages from any other state.