Posted on 07/08/2010 2:09:02 PM PDT by Pyro7480
What about abortion and the states rights back in 1973? Abortion was banned in 33 states at the time. Roe v Wade threw out all those state’s laws on abortion.
That is the reason why the 16th amendment was passed. Uniformity as the courts have decreed referred to geographic uniformity for income taxes, if I earn $100 K in FL I pay the same tax rate as someone who earns $100 K in Alaska. The very first income tax post 16th Amendment had two rates.
Disagree; vigorously.
This ruling is constitutional and retards the agenda of the left (federalization).
If Massachusetts wants to dignify homosexual behavior, let them. All politics are local. If you disagree, move out of Massachusetts or stay and work to correct the tragedy.
I’m just saying, reread the case. It’s all there.
State governments cannot reinterpret marriage to permit polygamy. One man and one woman.
Feds can’t reinterpret marriage either but they have the responsibility of defending marriage. This is to permit marriages across the country to be recognised anywhere else.
“This ruling is constitutional and retards the agenda of the left (federalization).
If Massachusetts wants to dignify homosexual behavior, let them. All politics are local. If you disagree, move out of Massachusetts or stay and work to correct the tragedy”
I do tend to agree that this is a question for the states to decide individually. One sticking point however is this: Most states recognize the marriages in another state.
If someone moves from a state that recognizes homosexual “marriage” to one that doesn’t, then what happens?
Does the state have to recognize that marriage? If they do not, is that a violation of the equal protection clause?
The constitution also does not grant the federal government the power to define what is a mile, a foot, a meter, a second, an hour, a day, or an alcohol molecule. So, each state should have the right to define them as they wish, right?
“Does the state have to recognize that marriage? If they do not, is that a violation of the equal protection clause?”
This is why it’s not up to the states. The feds jurisdiction is to maintain the definition of marriage, so that this issue doesn’t crop up.
This is why Utah had to accept the fed’s rule against polygamy before they could become a state.
If it were up to the states, then there really is no reason why they would be banned from endorsing polygamy, but this was not the case.
What. Case. Are. You. Talking. About?
Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1878), which is the only "Reynolds" case that I know of that touches on polygamy. If so, that case doesn't hold (or even discuss) what you assert.
From the decision, here are the questions of law that were determined in that particular case...
" 1. Was the indictment bad because found by a grand jury of less than sixteen persons?Are you sure you aren't confused about the name of the case to which you are referring?2. Were the challenges of certain petit jurors by the accused improperly overruled?
3. Were the challenges of certain other jurors by the government improperly sustained?
4. Was the testimony of Amelia Jane Schofield, given at a former trial for the same offence, but under another indictment, improperly admitted in evidence?
5. Should the accused have been acquitted if he married the second time, because he believed it to be his religious duty?
6. Did the court err in that part of the charge which directed the attention of the jury to the consequences of polygamy?
so mass rules the state has the right to overule the fed.
in calif the court might rule the fed overturns the state.
This is why we need the federal marriage amendment.
Absolutely right. The states can REGULATE the production, distribution, and consumption of alcohol, but that doesn't mean they can REDEFINE the chemical composition of an alcohol molecule.
Let me try to understand. A federal judge says the elected branches of the federal government (Congress and the President) cannot pass the law because it interferes with the legalization of gay marriage imposed in Massachusetts by a state court despite a state law enacted by the elected branches of Massachusetts (legislature and Governor). Democracy at work. </s>
First of all,gay “marriage” is STILL not legal in Massachusetts!
http://massresistance.blogspot.com/2010/03/confirmed-today-gay-marriage-still-not.html
She has already admitted to the Senate that there are at least 15 cases that she would have to recuse herself from.
It almost makes me want to support her.
The next appointee would not be any better and would be a vote for the other side in those cases.
The effect of the 16th Amendment was simply to undo the wrongful SCOTUS decision in Pollock.
A U.S. judge in Boston ....
nuff said?
Sometimes conservatism means that in order to be philosophical consistent, you have to accept outcomes we do not like. However, in oder to define marriage on a FEDERAL level DOMA applies.
Actually this could be good for CA. This law has to be taken both ways. This would mean that the CA ban is Constitutional and can’t be overturned by the stupid homo judge.
I always thought it was a state's right, and I don't agree with bootstrapping everything to the commerce clause either. Assume for a minute that it is a state's right. How could it be handled without the Fed?
The states can have bilateral arrangements regarding marriage recognition, or even a universal code that they can sign onto or something like that. The feds don't have to be involved necessarily.
Personally, I would like to see lots of the Federal stuff thrown out the window and put back in the state's hands. I like the 10th amendment, and I think repeal of the 17th might be a good thing too.
Our nat’l congress critters ignore what is good for the states and the people and I for one am sick of it.
It’s never been an enumerated power of the federal government. The argument in reynolds is that marriage carries over from the common law tradition, and that the federal government has a duty to retain the defintion.
They argue that as the Federal government has no power to change the definition, neither do the states.
The states don’t have bilateral definition of marriage, marriage isn’t in their purview at all. They have an obligation to recognise marriages throughout the US. They also have an obligation to retain the current definition of marriage.
For example, the federal government has an enumerated power to defend immigration laws. So long as marriage between an American citizen and a non-citizen resident confers upon it citizenship status to the resident, the issuance of marriage licenses remains a federal purview.
This is why Massachusetts wants it to be a state responsibility because states would effectively have control over their own immigration policies, as we do here in Canada. The state argument is a terrible one.
“Sometimes conservatism means that in order to be philosophical consistent, you have to accept outcomes we do not like. However, in oder to define marriage on a FEDERAL level DOMA applies.’
Immigration is the real argument that Massachusetts is after, not marriage. This is the best reason why it should remain to the federal government, unless you believe states should have their own immigration policy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.