Should we send ALL marriages back to the states?

Question

That way people can ban gay marriage as well as intrerracial marriage and interfaith marriage? Afterall, marriage is protected by the federal government to prevent the majority from squashing the rights of the minorities...so why not just send all of it back to the states?

So equal rights for ALL doesn't exist? EVERY person has to be named to be included? Thinking like this created the ACLU...now you know what to do to get rid of them...start acting according to the constitution! sheesh...

Answer 1

No marriage should be banned,,I don't care who anyone else would want to marry,,it's none of my business.

Answer 2

The only power the Federal Government has over marriages in the “Full Faith and Credit” clause in the Constitution, this clause reads: Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

This clause forces each state to accept as legal any lawful contract entered into in any of the other states. Thus if Main allows a marriage contract to be legal within its own borders (hetero or homosexual) then all the other states have to accept the marriage as legal. Because the Full Faith and Credit Clause has also been invoked to recognize the validity of a marriage. Traditionally, every state honored a marriage legally contracted in any other state.

However, in 1993, the Hawaii Supreme Court held that Hawaii's statute restricting legal marriage to parties of the opposite sex establishes a sex-based classification, which is subject to strict scrutiny if challenged on equal protection grounds (Baehr v. Lewin, 852 P.2d 44, 74 Haw. 530). Although the court did not recognize a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, it raised the possibility that a successful equal protection challenge to the state's marriage laws could eventually lead to state-sanctioned same-sex marriages. In response to the Baehr case, Congress in 1996 passed the Defense of Marriage Act (110 Stat. § 2419), which defines marriage as a union of a man and a woman for federal purposes and expressly grants states the right to refuse to recognize a same-sex marriage performed in another state.

Now this legislation Congress passed has not yet been tested as Constitutional and many fear that it will not stand up to a Constitutional challenge and are pushing for a Constitutional Amendment. In each state that has allowed same sex marriages it has been through the courts that the right was gained, not by elected legislator.

It also seems to me that some how the right of a minority is being squashed by did allowing same sex marriages are outrageous. Name one right that a heterosexual has that a homosexual does not have? I know, you will say the right to marry a person of their choice. Well a heterosexual is disallowed from marrying a sister (or brother) or one of their own children even is children from the union are out of the question. Do you propose that these laws also be abolished? Are not the minorities who want to marry children and have many wives also having their rights being squashed?

Answer 3

Right now it does reside with the states - gay marriage that is. Interracial marriage has been dealt with on a federal level by the USSC, in Loving vs. Virginia (1967). As a result of that ruling all anti-miscegenation laws in the separate states were struck null and void and the court ruled marriage was a basic civil right. Interfaith marriage? I didn't know there has been any sort of uproar over that, thought it has always been a private family matter. Look for the gay marriage issue to come to the USSC eventually, due to the Full Faith and Credit Clause in the Constitution, despite the DOMA. Then all the states who banned gay marriage through state voting can start sweating.

Answer 4

Marriage began as a religious sacrament. Where the government went wrong was in adopting the word marriage for the license. I would propose that all couples receive a "certificate of civil union." If they are to be married, then that will be performed by their church and the church can issue a marriage certificate if they wish to. As far as the state is concerned, the couples are all equal under the law and can have any ceremony they want, performed by a person legally eligible to join them either through a civil or religious ceremony.

Answer 5

In my opinion, marriage should never have left the states to begin with, since the Constitution clearly states that all powers not expressly granted to the federal government are to be reserved for each individual state to decide.

Ruling on marriage and other social contracts or agreements is one of those powers.

Answer 6

Sway and MoltarRocks- are you saying that if a woman or a man is infertile, they shouldn't get married, either? I mean, if your real argument is lack of reproduction capabilities, that certainly seems to be the next step. What about people who don't want kids? Should we ban them, too?

I understand what the person asking this question is trying to say, and I think it's sad that I know people who actually do think it's wrong to have an interracial or interfaith marriage. About as sad as it is to try to ostracize gay people because of your own prejudices.

Answer 7

marriage is not protected by the federal government.

it is all regulated by the states.

the only federal question is the full faith & credit clause, which requires that other states give full faith and credit to whatever the other states do. that's why states recognize marriages and driver's licenses from other states.

and the full faith & credit clause is in the constitution; you can't change it without an amendment.

Answer 8

The state does have precidence regarding legislation relating to marriage. What are you talking about?

Answer 9

I disagree. I am in an interracial relationship and plan to marry within a few years. Really I don't care who people marry. If a male wants to marry another male, that's his business because he has to answer to God for that and NOT man.

Answer 10

Many issues should be dealt with by the individual states.

The idea of centralizing every aspect of our lives doesn't sit all that well with me