[weegee]

As someone who is basically a conservative, I see not an argument about banning marriage or "defending" families but rather a power grab. Conservatives argue vehemently about federal usurpation of other issues best left to the states, such as abortion or gun control. Why would they elevate this one to the federal level?

The federal government should be protecting everyone's right to bear arms (2nd Ammendment of the Constitution).

Aborting children is as much a violation of civil rights as slavery and lynching is.

Marriages are licensed. Do away with marriage license and then there should be no fear of a federal "power grab", it would merely be a private set of secular or religous vows to another person holding no legal weight or governmental oversight.

Are we still talking "states' rights"?

[ArGee]

Are we still talking "states' rights"?

Actually, if the Senate would ammend the Constitution to force SCOTUS to keep out of the laws of the states (as in their Texas sodomy decision) then they would not need to create any kind of a law defending marriage on a national level. But as long as the SCOTUS can savage the laws of the states at will, a Constitutional ammendment may be required.

If SCOTUS will leave it up to the states, then I agree with the author. But SCOTUS won't. The biggest power grabbers in the history of our Republic is 9 appointed justices.

Shalom.

[GovernmentShrinker]

Private marriage contracts should hold the same legal weight as any other contract freely entered into by two or more adults. Government involvement should be limited to courts enforcing the contracts just as they would enforce any other contract. If you're dumb enough to get married without a written contract, you'll likely end up with a heap of trouble -- just as if you'd entered into a business partnership with no contract.