Posted on 06/07/2006 10:35:34 AM PDT by RaiderNation1
The proposed Marriage Protection Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does not violate principles of federalism. The definition of marriage has never been left to the states. Some conservatives urge defeat of the amendment because, they say, the Constitution has traditionally left regulation of marriage to the states. But the proposed amendment does not address state power to regulate marriage; rather, it requires states to adopt a uniform definition of marriage of one man and one woman -- something Congress has imposed upon states seeking admission to the Union for 160 years. No concept of federalism has ever granted states the authority to define marriage any way they desire. Federalism only grants states the power to regulate marriage already defined as one man and one woman.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
States vary on who is permitted to marry.
Some states outlaw cousin marriages, while others do not.
I find it interesting how a law written to specifically hobble religious freedom is being used as a conservative argument to restrict state rights.
Yes, but the requirement that marriage be federally uniform in composition (one man, one woman) is what the op-ed addresses. Did you read the entire piece?
But no states allow a man to marry his goat. No states allow a man to marry his brother. No states allow multiple marriages at the same time.
No, I just read the top. My bad.
It does not mean the the Federal government has the power to tell Massachusetts to rescind its same-sex marriages.
GE--
The piece addresses why an amendment (which, of course would specify what has historically been a given on a federal level AND A REQUIREMENT for statehood) does not run afoul of the concept of federalism and would in fact protect it.
We have situation now in the state of Washington, where we are awaiting a decision from that state's supreme court on marriage. WA does not have a residency requirement, so if the state court decides to redefine marriage, WA will become a "Las Vegas" for same-sex couples to "marry," go back to their own states with license in hand, have their "marriage" not recognized by the home state and have an ACLU attorney at the ready to file a federal lawsuit on a full faith and credit basis.
With this very real possibility on the horizon, is it not wise to settle once and for all (even though it's ludicrous that we are forced to restate that the "Pope is Catholic") what will be recognized as marriage and thus not put every citizen in every state at the mercy of a one-judge majority in one state? After all, once in the constitution, we've solved the problem.
Why does marriage have to be federally uniform?
True, but a uniform recognition of the definition of marriage was a REQUIREMENT for statehood. Are you saying that once Utah became a state it would have been justified to pull out of its agreement and re-legalize polygamy? You can't be saying that.
Read my reply to GE above. Pretty simple.
"No, uniform recognition of the definition of marriage was NOT the requirement. Not having polygamy was the requirement, and no - since it was a condition of statehood, they could not back out and re-legalize it. However, such was NOT a condition, say in New York."
Of course not because in NY it was not an issue. The definition of marriage was not in dispute. The issue of same-sex "marriage" was not even a germ of a thought in ANYONE'S head at the time and had say, Oregon recognized such an oxymoronic institution as SSM, it surely would have been required to scrap it in order to be accepted into the Union. I'm sure you'll agree.
Bingo.
I don't see how your claims that ACLU lawsuits are imminent is a compelling argument for a federal iron fist to preempt the states' right to set their own standards. If court battles ensue, then so be it. I'm not going to wet my pants and go crying to mamma federal government to protect me from the big bad bully.
At face value, an equally viable solution based on your reasoning would be for the federal government to mandate that all states must recognize all marriages from all the other states. Since you are presenting your concern to merely be one of consistency, then this must be a suitable alternative to you, right? (Note: I personally would oppose this solution as well - I support the individual state's right to determine the rules within its own borders. Within the explicit confines of the U.S. Constitution, of course, which is why I would rather not see a Constitutional amendment that takes away from this right.)
It's not just federal. It's universal! For two human beings to be married, one has to be a man; the other a woman.
It's like hydrogen and oxygen making up water. Nothing else can be water. If you add nitrogen to the mix, it's something else and no longer water.
Simple enough?
Too simple, actually. The chemical makeup of water is a law of nature. It simply cannot be broken, nor redefined by man. A 'universal' law of man, even one held in such high sanctity as the definition of marriage, is subject to the whims of man. Therefore your analogy is flawed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.