[The Noodle]

If a constitutional amendment defining marriage goes against his views of federalism, he needs to explain how the alternative amendment he is proposing does not. That makes no sense at all. The only possibility I can think of is if such an amendment basically said that there was nothing in the US Constitution upon which a state judge could rely on in mandating same sex marriages. In other words, his proposed amendment would essentially state that it was up to each state to determine whether or not it same sex marriage is permitted in that state. If his views of federalism do not allow for the US Constitution to define marriage, then his version of federalism also should not dictate how a state should decide the issue.

[FlashBack]

The actions of a few judges is what is motivating his decision process on this I believe.

[rogue yam]

Like you I am confused by this new proposal. Why not let each state amend their state constitution to forbid state judges from interpreting that state's constitution as requiring that gay marriage be allowed?

[hoosierpearl]

It has always been the states that issued marriage licenses and the federal government has never done that. Each state has always made their own conditions for the basis of a marriage, what age you can get married. It has always been state law since the beginning of our country. It would be far easier to duke it out in your own state with your own state legislators than to try to do it nationally.

Something like he is proposing might also hold back a federal judge in making a ruling.

[FreedomFromGov]

Nicely said, and an interesting paradox: how can you legislate social conservative values on the federal level while simultaneously supporting states’ sovereignity? This is Thompson trying to pander to all sides; and it just might work.

[MEGoody]

If his views of federalism do not allow for the US Constitution to define marriage, then his version of federalism also should not dictate how a state should decide the issue.

Sounds to me like all he is proposing is that a judge can't make the decision - it has to be the legislature. Seems okay to me. What am I missing?

[RobbyS]

The chief problem is the full faith and credit clause. No state should be able to impose its domestic institutions on another state.

[papasmurf]

All I can tell ya’ is...there are infractions, misdemeanors, and felonies.

This would be, if anything, an infraction.

I might add, it does make me feel more protected from rouge judges upholding the likes of San Fransisco mayors, if you know what I mean.

[traditional1]

ANYTHING can be added to the Constitution as an amendment, so long as the requisite number of States ratify it....this IS a good thing. How many tortured readings of the Constitution by Activist Judges to circumvent voter wishes (even where voters approve ballot issues only to be over-ridden by some Liberal Activist Judge).

The Constitution is not easily amended, but it is up to THE STATES to let the PEOPLE decide, not some Judge.

If this isn't curbed soon, the Constitution becomes worthless, as these out-of-control Liberals/Socialists rip the heart out of the peoples' rights and wishes.

[BfloGuy]

If his views of federalism do not allow for the US Constitution to define marriage, then his version of federalism also should not dictate how a state should decide the issue.

Right. I'm very disappointed in this statement. The pandering has begun.

[rob777]

“If a constitutional amendment defining marriage goes against his views of federalism, he needs to explain how the alternative amendment he is proposing does not.”

I believe that he added a qualification earlier in this debate that it might become necessary if the courts started to rule against state laws protecting traditional marriage.

[dougd]

Since the US Constitution guarantees a republican form of government in each state, I think there is some sense to this proposal. When state judges redefine simple English words, they are violating that very basic Constitutional guarantee.

Perhaps it should be made a little more broad and encompassing to restrain state judges from usurping a republican state government in general, rather than making it specific to gay "marriage."

[CheyennePress]

>>>Along with restraining state judges, the amendment Mr. Thompson is proposing would also mandate that no state be forced to recognize gay marriages from other states<<<

No. Either this doesn't make a lick of sense or Thompson didn't answer the question, which was what role the federal government has in defining marriage. He's either referring to an amendment to the Iowa constitution or proposing the most convoluted and twisted amendment in the US Constitution. A real federal marriage amendment wouldn't require the language about others states not needing to recognize gay marriages from other states. Marriage would be defined, and that would be that.

What Thompson looks like he is doing is opening up a can of legal worms. He might say that one state doesn't have to recognize another's marriage laws, but he had better say "gay marriage laws" (and I don't even think that would stand legally speaking). Because if he doesn't, what if a federal judge comes along and declares that gays have the right to marry under the protections provided by the US Constitution? At that point, other states might not need to respect the marriage laws of other states, but that ruling would essentially make unconstitutional the laws and constitutions of states that prevent gays from marrying.

And this is of course the obvious argument against letting states define the issue through their laws and constitutions. All it takes is one federal judge (or ruling) to blow the whole thing to pieces and redefine marriage across the whole nation. And I could very easily see it happening through a very liberal interpretation of the 14th amendment. If you at all support traditional marriage, it's an incredibly myopic argument to declare that this should be left up to the states, especially given the actions of federal and judges in general as of late. A very dangerous and a very stupid one. Make no mistake about it, the gay lobby is fighting to be recognized under the 14th-amendment, and proposal leaves the door wide open.

Again, whatever argument Thompson is trying to make, he's leaving the door wide open for a federal judge to muck everything up. This isn't common sense. This is dogmatic adherence to a philosophy that simply doesn't address the scope of this problem.

And as Thompson further delineates what the heck he's talking about, I guess we can critique. Right now, this is a bunch of gobbley-gook. And poorly thought-out gabbly-gook by my estimation.

[billbears]

The only possibility I can think of is if such an amendment basically said that there was nothing in the US Constitution upon which a state judge could rely on in mandating same sex marriages. In other words, his proposed amendment would essentially state that it was up to each state to determine whether or not it same sex marriage is permitted in that state

We already have that. It's called the 10th Amendment. Big government social 'conservatives' are going to do everything they can to finish off this Republic..