So one liberal state should force the federal gov’t to recognize homo marriage? Because that’s what we are really talking about with Fred’s proposed amendment. You can’t have it both ways. You can’t write into the federal constitution, “marriage in these United States is defined whatever crazy way individual states choose to define it” and expect the federal gov’t to be allowed to pick and choose which of those marriages it will recognize and benefit. The only way the federal gov’t can avoid being forced to recognize homosexual marriage is if we define it as only between one man and one woman in the federal constitution. It isn’t a state issue when the federal gov’t recognizes them and provides dozens of benefits.
What they’re looking to do is let one federal court ruling obliterate all the hard word of individual states, sending their little federalism dogma whirling down the porcelain drain along with the American family—all in the name of supporting some guy named Fred.
The gay marriage issue seems less important to me right now when compared to: the war, the economy, illegal immigrants, unfair trade with china, bloated federal government, out of control spending, etc.
I tend to like the idea of giving more authority to individual states and take away from the authority of the fed. With the marriage issue, maybe this just isn’t practical though. If we have more than one definition of marriage, what happens when people get married in one state then move to another state? Currently there is a form of reciprocity for marriage licenses. It’s no big deal now since the only real differences between states is the legal age at which one can get married. But if one state begins allowing polygamy or gay marriage, or marriage to animals, and the other states ban these...how is reciprocity going to work?
I guess I would still be in favor of letting the states decide the marriage issue provided someone comes up with a good solution regarding the reciprocity issue.