The 10th amendment is in the Constitution. It has nothing to do with the Civil War. Its a lawful way for states to nullify unconstitutional laws.
If the state of Alabama says they will not allow gay marriages what is the fed govt going to do about it? How about nothing.
“The 10th amendment is in the Constitution. It has nothing to do with the Civil War. Its a lawful way for states to nullify unconstitutional laws.”
Sorry, but in the lead up to the Civil War, “Federal supremacy”, derived from Article 6, Clause 2, became the law of the land, rendering the 10th Amendment completely toothless. That was the end result of the nullification battle, and that is where it has stood ever since. You can stand on Constitutional principles all you want, but without the force to back them up, they are going to be of little comfort.
“If the state of Alabama says they will not allow gay marriages what is the fed govt going to do about it? How about nothing.”
Well, if the Feds decide this is a civil rights issue, and Alabama is in violation of Federal law or court decisions on the matter, then they can take some pretty drastic steps to enforce it, just as they do for other civil rights matters. Remember, the southern states are still under federal monitoring of elections from the 60s and they are unable to pass election-related laws without federal approval. The feds doing something similar with regards to marriages is not hard to imagine.
“If the state of Alabama says they will not allow gay marriages what is the fed govt going to do about it? How about nothing.”
I concur as long as the state doesn’t use force of arms or claim secession, but just refuses to comply and refuses to follow judicial “rulers” wearing “federal” robes. As long as there is NO violence on the part of the state, then the federal government dares not resort to violence. The state’s action would embolden other conservative states like Alabama and Oklahoma to resort to “non-violent resistance.” IF either side (state or federal) resort to violence...they lose the argument in the eyes of the rest of the country. The aggressor would lose public support.
The only question in my mind is if the people of the State of Georgia feel strongly enough about this to so act?