[Recovering_Democrat]

The question of whether or not there ought to be a federal statute to protect this, I don't support. I do believe that... historically the way marriage has been regulated is at the state level. It has always been a state issue and I think that is the way it ought to be handled, on a state-by-state basis... But I don't have any problem with that. People ought to get a shot at that."

THIS IS FEDERALISM, THE SYSTEM OUR FOUNDERS ESTABLISHED. CHENEY IS RIGHT.

[calex59]

Ditto..

[Lilpug15]

I agree...

[VRWCmember]

The question of whether or not there ought to be a federal statute to protect this, I don't support. I do believe that... historically the way marriage has been regulated is at the state level. It has always been a state issue and I think that is the way it ought to be handled, on a state-by-state basis... But I don't have any problem with that. People ought to get a shot at that."

THIS IS FEDERALISM, THE SYSTEM OUR FOUNDERS ESTABLISHED. CHENEY IS RIGHT.

The problem with that reasoning is this:
Once one state changes the definition of marriage to allow same-sex marriage, then homosexual couples from other states will go to that state and get married, then return to their home states and sue in federal court under the "full faith and credit" clause to try to force their home states to recognize their "marriage".

This has already been tried in several states, with the courts thus far ruling in favor of the states and against the activists trying to achieve through litigation what they can't through legislation and elections. In one case the homo couple sued the state to try to use the state's divorce courts to dissolve the "marriage" that doesn't exist in the home state.

No matter how many times the courts rule in favor of the states and against the lititious activists, all it will take is ONE ruling in favor of the activists to overturn all the "stare decisis" and create a new Constitutional right to homosexual marriage that trumps all state laws and even the federal Defense of Marriage Act. That is why Cheney is wrong about the "federalist" argument for a state-by-state basis for handling the issue. If we were still a nation of law, and were governed by the rule of law, and had a federal court system that would actually apply the Constitution, he would be correct. But unfortunately, in the age of courts of empathy rather than courts of law, that is not the case.

[longtermmemmory]

ahh but it is a federal issue because states are forced to recognized, notwithstanding the 1996 DOMA, the marriages of other states.

For example, if one state has common law marriage that is recognized for its residents, when those residents move to another state that common law marriage is recognized for purposes of death and divorce.

In fact the homosexuals are using Full Faith and Credit in order to attack marriage as a whole.