Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: GunRunner

“I’m still not seeing marriage definition there.”

Again, the Constitution runs on top of the Common Law. The Common Law definition of Marriage has been the law in the United States since well before the Constitution was even enacted. Arguing that “if the Constitution doesn’t mention it renders the existing marriage laws at the time invalid” doesn’t fly.

“From a practical standpoint, if the FedGov were the sole authority in defining marriage”

It’s not. The Federal government doesn’t even have the authority to *define* marriage. It has the power to enforce the definition as one man and one woman. Enforce!= Define.

“then it would also have to be the sole authority to define divorce.”

The need for a uniform standard of marriage doesn’t apply to the laws for dissolving one.

“Visas and passports are issued by the federal government; marriage certificates are issued by the state.”

Yes, and if the federal government issues spousal visas, then it has the authority to define whom constitutes a spouse. This is right in the first article. “Uniform standard of naturalization”, direcly precludes different standards for different states.

Having multiple marriage definitions, simple doesn’t work. The Full Faith and Credit clause renders the states that have passed gay marriage as a legal fiction. They own a document that purports to be something that is not. Now it is possible for a state to attempt to defy federal law, but this is no different from any other occurance.


173 posted on 01/20/2013 8:45:18 PM PST by JCBreckenridge (Texas is a state of mind - Steinbeck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies ]


To: JCBreckenridge
No, the Constituion is the Supreme Law of the Land. It does not run on top of colonial law, the Articles of Confederation, or anything else.

If you are a non-constructionist, you could argue that it has the power to define marriage without a Constitutional Amendment. But the enumerated powers do not mention defining the terms of marriage contracts. Even DOMA did not forbid states from setting their own terms, but only establishing the standard that states are required to acknowledge with respect to the FedGov and between the states.

The top down approach won't accomplish your goals. They will simply be circumvented at the federal level even if you can make strides; a swap in the party leadership will swap everything back and forth. Central planning at that level fails.

175 posted on 01/20/2013 8:58:19 PM PST by GunRunner (***Not associated with any criminal actions by the ATF***)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


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