State VS. Federal?!?

On the Sig talk forum someone posted a thread on gay marriage vs gun rights. The last I looked it was 48 pages long and in the thread are the obstacles. The big dog is the need to believe being gay is a choice. There was also that marriage is a privilege and not a right. I posted the Supreme Court decision on interracial marriage which says it is a right. I don’t think the Supreme Court will decide the matter before a lot more states make it legal based on past history. The people opposed to gay marriage in the Sig Talk forum were all from the South and I was able to get out of them after a lot of pushing is their fear that the bible is not the word of God if gays are born that way. They find gay marriage as a starting point of that. I see those opposed insecure in themselves. Most people who posted on the thread were for gay marriage which is surprising compared to years back. My reference is my gay brother dying of AIDS in the south in 1995 and not any of his straight friends or coworkers even attended the funeral or sent card or flowers. To make the bible folks happy the bible would have to be reinterpreted and that would be a slow process.

I did a search on here and didn't find anything. Is Obama Gay? If so that should help. From what I have read about him he is and Michelle is an arranged marriage for political gain.

 

This is actually a complicated issue. One of the reasons it's complicated is because our strongest argument for the repeal of DOMA is because marriage laws have been traditionally left to the states. The federal government is basically stepping in and asserting power that it doesn't traditionally have over domestic policy.

That being said I believe that because so many states have legalized gay marriage at this point, and the trend is only going to continue that we're facing a major problem. We're facing exactly the same problem that existed for interracial couples that led to Loving vs. Virginia.

We run into serious problems when states do not recognize the laws of other states. In fact, it can lead to major problems. What happens if I am married in Maryland and move to Virginia? What happens if I want a divorce and Virginia is my place of legal residence? How is property divided? How are claims settled when Virginia doesn't even recognize the marriage? What happens if I'm legally married in one state, and my husband happens to be on a business trip in a state that doesn't recognize gay marriage and something awful happens? Will I be notified as his next of kin, and if I'm not do I have the right to sue?

What happens if a state goes in a radically different direction than the rest of the country, and decides that since their state has a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage that anyone who is gay married in another state is breaking the law in their state? In other words, if I'm marry my husband in Maryland and go to Virginia where it is constitutionally banned, and Virginia passes a law saying anyone who is married to someone of the same sex will be fined $2,500 and face 6 months in prison... will I be arrested and fined? (It should be noted that the Lovings were actually arrested after it became known they had been married in Washington D.C.)

Those are just some of the issues that arise.

Because of these issues and potential issues, I believe that this federalizes marriage for same sex couples. It's important for states to have a unified policy on fundamental matters like this that face the daily lives of individuals.

What's more to NOT recognize gay marriage I believe is a violation of gay and bisexual American's 14th Amendment rights to equal protection under the law. Since straight people can get married so should gay people, to do otherwise creates a separate class of citizen. This is also consistent with previous Supreme Court rulings on marriage which have declared marriage a fundamental right of all Americans.

To deny equal marriage rights to LGBT Americans would be inconsistent with the past rulings the Court has made on the subject of marriage. So, yes, because of the complicated nature of marriage and the patchwork of state laws we're now facing I believe that marriage is a federal issue that needs to be decided by the Courts the same way Loving vs Virginia was decided.

 

State governments are far more corrupt and less democratic than the federal government.

For instance, my state (NC) has a general assembly that has gerrymandered itself into permanence so severely, the democrats could win a landslide 20-point popular vote victory and still lose seats. We're essentially a banana republic.

A lot of other states are the same way. When the feds leave important things like 'civil rights' to the states, inevitably the terrible states end up taking lots of liberties away from their citizens. Inevitably, the terrible states have to be dragged kicking and screaming into the present by the rest of the states, and it's a good thing we do that. If we didn't, progress might never happen in some places.

Perhaps if there were requirements that states could only add constitutional liberties for their citizens, not remove them, there might be something to leaving some issues at the state level. Perhaps if states used better electoral systems and were actually democratic in their representation, there might be something to it.

Right now though, no way.

 

I've always thought it was a stupid idea to have one law in one place, and another elsewhere.

 

Is it okay if I say that I hope it goes federal just so that I get to marry without moving. (!!)

 

I get torn on this because on one hand I feel the federal government has usurped much of the states power, and states rights are important, but I don't feel our RIGHTS should be determined state by state.

 

There are 1,138 federal benefits to marriage that are denied to same-sex couples. Marriage is already a federal issue, there can't be two different standards (or fifty-one different standards, as it were).

There are also more basic things such as the right to be considered for a job and the right to public accommodations, without being discriminated against for being who you are. There is no federal law protecting these basic civil rights to people on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.

The biggest problem with leaving it to the states is that the places that need laws against discrimination the most will be the ones that never pass them. The Northeast and West Coast states will pass anti-discrimination laws, but this is a product of the fact that the cultures in these regions are much more favorable to LGBTQ equality, so discrimination, while still a problem, will already be minimal. Southern states like Mississippi have deeply homophobic cultures and will never pass anti-discrimination laws, so they are hotbeds for widespread discrimination. It will federal action to stop it, just like it took federal action to stop racial discrimination down there.

 

I always get a kick when "pro-family" people say that we should leave it to the states. Not because of the fact that I am torn between federalism and states' rights (10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people), but for the hypocrisy of different states' laws.

I always tell them my family's story.

My female cousin fell in love with my male cousin. They wanted to get married but, because of consanguinity, Texas wouldn't marry them. So, they hopped the border to New Mexico where marriages between first cousins are legal and then returned to Texas. By "magic" (read: Full Faith and Credit Clause and because they are heterosexual and not affected by DOMA) Texas now recognizes them as a lawfully wedded couple. Go figure. I then say that they now have four great children, two of who are moderately retarded (actual clinical diagnosis). Then, I state that I cannot marry a guy in one state and have it recognized in all 50, but incestual marriages (at least up to first-cousins) are lawful in any state provided they were performed in a state that allows it.

Finally, I urge them to support the Defense From Incest Act with their local Congressperson so that the Bible's standards of marriage purity.

(OK, I don't actually say the last part. :roflmao

 

In the US, marriage is in the mixed jurisdiction of your Federal, and State legislatures, which means both have to agree, or one must over-ride the other, which is where the constitutional arguments of jurisdiction over marriage come in. When it comes down to it, it is about states trying to maintain a very sovereign legal system, which basically means they take what they can from the Federal government (and therefore the rest of the country), and contribute as little as possible, which also leads to the weird legal system you have over there. Democracy doesn't really come into this (it should, though), as it is more a matter of lawyers interpreting the constitution as best serves their clients.

 

I would rather have the states decide on where we can get married their and the federal government only force states to recognize marriages that have been proformed in other states. I beleive that people need to stop counting on the federal government to do everything, it is far easier to get somthing done locally than it is on the national level, beleive it or not. People need to put more emphasis on their local governments rather than the federal government, and to those of you who say that you dont trust your state governments, you have the power to change that. It is a lot easter to get somthung done locally than it is to get it done federally, the problem is that the people who dont want us to have rights are more aware of that than we are.

 

My belief is that marriage equality and gender identity protections are a constitutional requirement under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Therefore, I believe there needs to be a federal remedy at law.

 

Well, recognition of gay marriage should be federal, just like straight couples. Even though not all states are equal in political views, it's very unfair for the gays in the Deep South States because the Pro and Anti gay marriage ratio is so off and tips way towards the Anti side. Besides, a marriage is a marriage. It's two people who love each other so what's to oppose of that?

 

Though it would be nice to be able to work this out on the federal level, the 10th amendment clears this up pretty well. The Federal Government does not have the power to legislate this(or 90% of everything else they do, stupid necessary and proper clause). What would be optimal is to completely take "marriage" out of the tax code, and use "partnerships", and then have "marriage" be a church mandated thing.

 

I think the Privileges and Immunities Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment still require a federal normalization of marriage law. As much as I'd love to see state marriage go away completely, that's not a realistic option.

 

The 14th provides "equal protection of laws" nowhere does it say that they can not deny the right to do something for some and allow it for others. In fact if it did a plethora of our laws would be unconstitutional(drinking age, vehicle licenses, concealed carry, etc.....). the only purpose of that was to safeguard against racial discrimination concerning preexisting rights. Same argument can be made against the privileges and immunities clause. If you want to argue that that gives the federal government the right to make a marriage law, then you must also except that you would be arguing against all of the necessary restrictions I listed above.

 

when you look at most issues, states tend to totally screw up because local politics overwhelm intelligence and common sense when power is invested in the state.

however, on the gay marriage issue, there is something to say about choosing the path of least resistance, and working over time to change additudes before forcing the issue.