Replies

This amendment goes way beyond restoring any balance of powers. It takes the definition of marriage, which has always been in the hands of the states, and forever pulls it into the federal realm. It specifically says how marriage will be defined in all states, and it specifically says how all federal AND STATE laws will be interpreted. This is a huge encroachment on the rights of the states, and creates a tremendous imbalance in favor of the federal government over the states.

Name me a single state where a majority would disagree with the wording of this amendment?

Seriously, this isn't much of an issue for federalism because the entire idea of marriage wasn't considered something in need of a legislative definition, any more than gravity, until very recently. There is not now, and never has been, a state that considered marriage to be something different than defined above, with the possible exception of Utah, who would have included polygamy.

Funny thing about Utah. In order to enter the union they had to renounce legalized polygamy. In which case, how can one argue that this sort of thing has been enshrined as a state issue until now?

"Name me a single state where a majority would disagree with the wording of this amendment? " There probably aren't as of this moment. But this amendment isn't just for today - its FOREVER. It forever precludes states from making up their own minds on this issue. If you really want to impose all the views of a majority of states onto each of the other states, there's no reason to keep calling us the United STATES of America.

For most of history marriage hasn't been a civil matter at all -- it's been solely a religious matter. The state's intrusion in marriage is the real departure from tradition and precedent. So if historical precedent is the argument, then civil marriage should be abolished altogether, and returned to the church or to the participants themselves.

Frankly, I consider the idea of bureaucratic license for a sacrament to be pretty obcene.