Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Kaslin

I still have to question, what in the US Constitution grants the federal government the power to define marriage? Outside of adding an amendment that specifically addresses this topic, I would say there is nothing there that permits it.


2 posted on 07/13/2010 9:51:18 AM PDT by pnh102 (Regarding liberalism, always attribute to malice what you think can be explained by stupidity. - Me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: pnh102
Actually, from what I understand, part of DOMA is actually the federal government giving up some of its power under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of Article IV of the Constitution.

Section 2 of DOMA reads, "No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship."

7 posted on 07/13/2010 9:55:30 AM PDT by Pyro7480 ("If you know how not to pray, take Joseph as your master, and you will not go astray." - St. Teresa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: pnh102
I still have to question, what in the US Constitution grants the federal government the power to define marriage? Outside of adding an amendment that specifically addresses this topic, I would say there is nothing there that permits it.

And you are correct. To a true constitutionalist, there should be NO provisions for marriage.

But.....

It is part of a strange legal and tax system - - it's in a mass that is impossible to untangle.

9 posted on 07/13/2010 9:59:22 AM PDT by Loud Mime (Argue from the Constitution: Initialpoints.net)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: pnh102

“I still have to question, what in the US Constitution grants the federal government the power to define marriage? Outside of adding an amendment that specifically addresses this topic, I would say there is nothing there that permits it.’

the common law has always permitted the federal government to recognise the definition of marriage. You are correct that there is nothing in the constitution that gives the federal government the power to define marriage. They can’t change it, they simply enforce the definition.

States do not have the power to redefine marriage to suit themselves. What was sauce for Utah is sauce for Massachusetts.


10 posted on 07/13/2010 10:01:29 AM PDT by BenKenobi (I want to hear more about Sam! Samwise the stouthearted!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: pnh102

DOMA defines marriage in federal law for the purpose of administrating federal law. Things like social security beneifits, federal tax filings, federal employee benefits, etc.

If you think the FedGov is expensive now, wait until they start dishing out money to the domestic partners of Tom, Dick and Harry.

There are valid socio-cultural and economic reasons for limiting marriage to biologically complentary units (men-women), one being that the intact biological family unit is actually the most cost effecient method to rearing the next generation of citizens.

The homosexual lobby will blather on about justice, fairness, bigotry, yada yada, blah, blah, blah, but at the end of it all the stubborn fact is that the natural union of man and women rearing their biological offspring is the best, most efficient and least expensive (to society) method of rearing children.

Everyone who pretends differently is trying to sell something, and it ain’t the truth.


22 posted on 07/13/2010 10:27:53 AM PDT by Valpal1 ("All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: pnh102

You mean: change the meaning of marriage from it’s historical usage in this country......and defy Natural Law.

Nothing but Marxism....change the meaning of words. Congress should have NO power to change the meaning of words in the dictionary or the meaning of the Constitution without an amendment to the Constitution.

The Truth is that our nation was based on Natural Law and God’s Laws and they are trashing Natural Law which can not be done unless we dump our Constitution and are no longer the USA.


31 posted on 07/13/2010 11:03:45 AM PDT by savagesusie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson