2006-10-14 09:20:26 · 23 answers · asked by ddelga2005 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
The States. See the 10th Amendment to the C.
The only possible Fed issue is the Full Faith and Credit Clause, but States have always reserved the right to not give full faith and credit to laws repugnant to their own public policy...
2006-10-14 09:22:20 · answer #1 · answered by ? 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
If you asked the Founding Fathers they would answer the States, however the courts are supposed to make sure that all laws are constitutional and therefore, if a state passes an unconstitutional law the feds can over ride it. Even though this has been turned on its head where the federal government is passing laws and making states follow them. But conservatives know this will catch up with them, so this is why they were trying to make an anti-gay constitutional amendment.
2006-10-14 16:29:38 · answer #2 · answered by Kelly L 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I believe it should be decided by elected federal government. The reason I believe that Congress should have the say is that marriages in any state must be recognized in all of the other states. I believe it is unfair for a tiny state like Massachusetts to set federal policy. Such a controversial issue should be decided by a representative government.
I honestly do not care about the issue itself, if gays wanted to get married it would not affect me. I tend to favor the other side because of the way the gays brought the issue up. They just ignored the law and started getting married, that pushed me away
2006-10-14 16:26:51 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
According to the constitution it should of course be the states. But unfortunately, activist judges continue to ignore the proper operation of federalism within our republic on this and a host of other issues. The framers might as well have written the 10th amendment in invisible ink because it has basically been ignored since the Civil War.
2006-10-14 16:28:39 · answer #4 · answered by john c 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The federal government should stay completely out of it. Religious intitutions should also stay out of the marriage issue. States should be able to grant legal cohabitation agreements for both same-sex and hetero couples. These agreements should be finite contracts that should have optional renewal clauses after a certain period of time. This would significantly reduce the number of divorces.
2006-10-14 16:28:59 · answer #5 · answered by badkitty1969 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Currently, the states have the final word on marriage laws since there are curretly no federal statute on the issue.
Amendment 10 - provides this reserved power to the state legislature.
It will take a constitutional amendment to allow the federal government to impose its policy on same-sex marriage, of which, Congress have been unsucessfull on proposing after many attempts.
Furthermore, this same-sex marriage is actually a non-issue because an overwhelming number of states have refused to recognized same-sex marriages.
Fags need to stop kicking this dead horse.
Did I say fags?? Excuse me, I meant gays.
Sorry to insult you pole smokers and carpet rubbers..
2006-10-14 16:21:57 · answer #6 · answered by The Mac 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
As long as gays will accept no less than calling their relationship a marriage, this issue will fester. A "civil union" means the same thing under law. That might be the key to resolving the issue.
2006-10-14 16:27:02 · answer #7 · answered by LarryJ628 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋
States. We never ever want to give the federal government more control.
2006-10-14 16:22:23 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
Simple answer to this dilemma, the government should not favor marriage period. Who is government to take marriage from personal to legal issue?
2006-10-14 16:26:10 · answer #9 · answered by edubya 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I think it should be the federal government because then everyone would be on the same page.
2006-10-14 16:23:13 · answer #10 · answered by worldwise1 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋