Replies

Most if not all states will agree to reciprocity, without the federal government to act as overseer.

So the federal government is already acting as an overseer of marriage, without a Federal Marriage Amendment, and has been for some time. I'm glad we've established that.

I'm curious to know why this wasn't an issue prior to the FMA and the gay marriage issue. Of all the Constitutional champions on this forum, I can't recall a single thread or post in my eight years here that addressed this ongoing Constitutional crisis outside the context of a gay marriage debate. And I can't think of a single politician who advocated the position you're advocating prior to this discussion. Not one.

Since this is so important to you, I'm going to assume that your interest in de-federalizing marriage predates the gay debate. Maybe you could help me by directing me to some evidence of a discussion showing this was on anyone's radar prior to the homosexual agenda's newfound interest in federalism.

Thanks in advance.

My interest in de-federalizing virtually everything the federal government does pre-dates this issue. It has intensified as I have noticed that every time we argue an issue based on their premise, we lose. If it goes to court, we lose. It will take time, re-education and probably another revolution, but the winning answer is to return the federal government to the Constitution. If we got rid of all the unConstitutional spending and oversight the federal government engaged in, they would be 75% smaller.

If you want to argue an issue based on their premise, go ahead, good luck, I hope you win. That strategy gave us Roe v. Wade. I don't see it working any better this time, especially considering the Presedential candidates we have to choose from. NONE of them will nominate an Alito, and I doubt an Alito would be confirmed after the next election.

Our time in the wilderness is coming.