How on earth do you handle this issue federally? Let me explain the problems with doing this one on a state by state issue:
1. People move. If two guys get married in Vermont and later move to Oklahoma are they still married?
2. The IRS. Does the Vermont couple file jointly as married and the Oklahoma couple not?
3. That 14th Ammendment. Yes, we don't care for it, but it'll mean the courts will decided this on a one size fits all matter.
NeoCaveman - I get your position, and that's why I'm open to handling it in D.C.
But I'm sure you're aware that states currently issue licenses and regulations that are handled federally in many other areas than marriage.
As for the IRS, Bill Clinton has already handled that issue through DOMA. Many, many states have already taken those steps as well through legislation and constitutional (state) amendments.
1. People move. If two guys get married in Vermont and later move to Oklahoma are they still married?
2. The IRS. Does the Vermont couple file jointly as married and the Oklahoma couple not?
3. That 14th Ammendment. Yes, we don't care for it, but it'll mean the courts will decided this on a one size fits all matter.
1. Federal protection of marriage act answers this question.
2. Yes, because they are not married in the eyes of Oaklahoma.
3. That's not necessarily true. We don't know that yet, we'll only know when it actually comes up before the court.
I understand the problems with handling it at a state level, and if it doesn't work, i.e. if the courts mandate it, then I would support a Constitutional Amendment. Preferably, I would amend the Constitution to specifically make it a states issue, but if banning it federally were the only step available, I would take it.
I respect the side that says we need to act first, it's a respectable position and I understand their reasons, but I would rather wait till we know for sure that is our only out. Federalism has bent and broken enough on pressure from the left, it doesn't need pressure from the right unless absolutely necessary.