No 'power to prohibit' has ever been delegated to any level of government in the USA. -- Reasonably regulate, yes. -- Prohibit, no
I would suggest that my arguments thus far in regards to "prohibition" have defeated yours head on...
Now, let me offer an alternate argument -one that instead of taking the "prohibition" issue head on -cuts it off at the knees by concluding said issue of "prohibition" is actually a non-issue in regards to legislation and only applicable to judicial activists...
RE: the Amendment we discuss. Based upon my interpretation which hinges principally on one word, "construe", which I assume was chosen specifically and intentionally I would disagree with any who proclaim a potential "prohibition" of federal or states in regards to marriage.
ARTICLESECTION 1. This article may be cited as the ‘Marriage Protection Amendment’.
SECTION 2. Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.’’.
CONSTRUE: To adduce or explain the meaning of; interpret...
In my opinion the Amendment simply prohibits a judiciary the ability to construe a marital construct and leaves open the question legislatively at both federal and state levels...
SECTION 1. This article may be cited as the 'Marriage Protection Amendment'.
SECTION 2. Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.''.
CONSTRUE: To adduce or explain the meaning of; interpret...
In my opinion the Amendment simply prohibits a judiciary the ability to construe a marital construct and leaves open the question legislatively at both federal and state levels...
In my opinion the Amendment attempts to prohibit the judiciary from having the ability to interpret marriage or the legal incidents thereof to be anything other than the union of a man and a woman, and would also effectively close the question legislatively at both federal and state levels...
To me, its a tempest in a teapot.