would it be better if we kept minuscule issues like gay marriage a strictly a state issue?

Answer 1

Absolutely! Traditionally, marriage laws are determined by the states, and even though the conservatives often say that they want less government on the national level and more on the local level, Bush certainly took it upon himself to address the issue. But then again, I think that even Tucker Carlson said that Bush isn't even really a conservative. He may claim to be a conservative and spout conservative rhetoric, but his spending habits and many of his policies have been anything but conservative.

Answer 2

But it really ISN'T just a state issue. Because it has been long tradition in the US and the world, for the most part, to recognize marriages from other states and other countries.

But when other states and countries start messing with the definition of marriage and who can be married, it raises issues. When Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act, this signalled that states did NOT have to accept as legal marriages performed in other states that did not meet their rules of marriage.

And it is not that "minuscule" an issue. It has far ranging consequences, as can be seen in the results of legalizing homosexual marriage in Europe - it's had a dramatic and negative effect on traditional marriage and out-of-wedlock (i.e. bastard) children.

Answer 3

From a legal viewpoint, marriage is traditionally a state related issue and thus it follows that homosexual marriage also be governed by the states. One conflict, however, is mobility. EX: Steve and Gary get married in Massachusetts, which recognizes their marriage, but seek to move to Ohio, which does not recognize their marriage.

From a moral standpoint, I hesitate to change an institution that has been the foundation of humanity for thousands of years just so a few hundred couples across the country can say they're married.

Answer 4

Irrelevant.
Even if the issue was settled in a single state, the federal gov't would HAVE to step in, since marriage is a federally recognized institution. Otherwise, you could be married in CA but NOT married anymore once you cross the line into New Mexico. No trips to Las Vegas!!!

Answer 5

Absolutely. The federal government has no business dictating "morality" issues (for that matter, neither does a state government, but, if it's a choice between the two, I would rather have it decided by each state). Thank you for recognizing the "minuscule" factor here.

Answer 6

Yes. The way I see it, each state should be like its own little country and the federal government should only intervene in interstate issues and disputes between the states. The federal government should focus on foreign affairs.

Answer 7

I'm gonna say yes. That way if someone really wanted to be a same sex couple they could move to a state that supported their cause and raise their children (or not..I know everyone doesn't want kids) in a governmental system set up to fully support their rights.

And if you really hate the idea of same sex marriage you can move to a state that makes it against the law and you can go to bible study in peace.

Answer 8

The minuscule issue of gay marriages should receive God's blessing and not man's, for He created man and woman for the purpose of multiplying the human race, if gay marriages can multiply the human race, then God will have no difficulty to grant his blessing.

Answer 9

They should never have been a federal issue .
Making anything a federal issue is a way of trying to cram it down everybodies throat .

Answer 10

Yes.

The federal government should not waste its time trying to pass an amendment to the constitution to take away people's rights as humans.