What is the constitutional jurisdictions for this federal law to "supercede state laws?"
Art I, Sec 8 , "Powers of Congress"
Cl 3 "commerce clause?"
Cl 17, exclusive legistlative jurisdiction over purchased state land by federal government with state approval?
Article VI, Sec 2
laws made in conjunction with treaties as the law of the land?
But even if you can find federal jurisdiction for this law in one of the three articles listed above, the law still cannot vilate the Bill of Rights and successive amendments.
The law would violate Amendment IX, rights "retained by the people," and Amendment X, rights "reserved" to the states and the people.
Again, this is why I do not call myself a conservative any longer nor do I wish to vote for a Republican.
Conservative implies the desire to "conserve" something. How about conserving the Constitution.
Republicans are just like Democrats in their desire to contol how people wish to live their lives with unconstitutional, anti-liberty, communist/socialist laws but with just a different agenda than the Democrats and at a slower pace.
I don't quite see Republicans as just like Dems, but do agree that if our side increases federal power in the service of pet causes, the power will then be available to the Left to use in the service of their causes whenever they are elected.
All of which is clearly the opposite of the purposes of our founding fathers, IMO.
"Republicans are just like Democrats in their desire to contol how people wish to live their lives with unconstitutional, anti-liberty, communist/socialist laws but with just a different agenda than the Democrats and at a slower pace."
You are equating crap like Title 9 or whatever it is with homosexual marriage. All the Republicans in Congress and/or the White House (at various times, not singling out GW) are not necessarily conservatives, and they have passed laws and promoted causes which many conservatives, myself included, have vociferously disagreed with.
BUT - the Republican party has up until now at least nominally stood for conservative values and principles. Although not strongly enough. It sounds as though if the GOP was more conservative you'd like it even less.
I consider it "anti-liberty" for a few Nazgul-like judges and homosexual activists (homosexuals being at most 2% of the population, and supposedly a lot of them don't even support the "gay" agenda) to force same sex marriage down everyone's throats.
The Constitution is a living breathing document. That's why there are 27 Amendments to date. The Amendments have, for the most part, made the USA a better society.
If Liberals want us to be like Sweden, they should study the statistics of the effects same-sex marriage has had in that country. Not only do they have much higher rates of diseases spreading, but the average homosexual marriage lasts about 2 years and involves an average of 8 extramarital affairs. Those facts alone show it would cause an undue burden on our medical services and courts.
Years ago I never thought we'd be discussing an endorsement of homosexuality via marriage. Years from now we may be facing including pedophilia as an acceptable "sexual orientation". It's what The North American Man Boy Love Association wants. The "anything goes" and "you can't help who you love" has to stop somewhere.
I pity the people who have married with the intent to have a normal family and later found that their mate decided to have a sex change or changed their sexual preference. And Liberal Judges have already been awarding child custody to a "parent" that had a sex change based on the natural or Christian parent possibly raising the children to be biased against the other.
You certainly can't overlook the statistics that 86% of convicted pedophiles are admitted homosexuals, which is a large number in comparison to the 2 to 3% of the population they represent.