Democrat he may be, but give him credit where credit is due. Sen. Nelson has taken the correct position in this case. The Federal government has no justification for regulating marriage.
Unless they want to claim that the married are engaging in "interstate commerce", they just don't have Constitutional authorization for such a law.
Yes, I do know that lack of authorization has not stopped them in the past. But I can hope, can't I?
Two thumbs up for Katherine!!!.... from Massachusetts!!
Sure it does... here is the law...
Article. V.The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress;...
Pay attention to the words in red...
Article. IV.Section. 1. Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
And the U.S. Supreme Court...
“...In our opinion, the statute immediately under consideration is within the legislative power of Congress. It is constitutional and valid as prescribing a rule of action for all those residing in the Territories, and in places over which the United States have exclusive control... Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices... So here, as a law of the organization of society under the exclusive dominion of the United States, it is provided that plural marriages shall not be allowed. Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious beliefs? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist in name only under such circumstances...”Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 8 Otto 145, 24 L. Ed. 244 (1878).
See also...
Late Corporation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. United States, 136 U.S. 1, 10 S.Ct. 792, 34 L. Ed. 478 (1890). Revised as 140 U.S. 665, 11 S.Ct. 884, 35 L. Ed. 592 (1891).
Now there is the law smacking you in the face...
Nelson is just another political hack K.Harris is the real deal
Nelson Sucks, Nuff said
This is a Constitutional Amendment being discussed.