Should states have the right to allow or ban gay marriage/abortion/etc. individually?

Question

For example if Massachusetts wants abortion legalized and gay marriage legal they could but if Virginia wanted gay marriages banned and abortion illegal they both could have their way within their own states. Of course Virginia would have to recognize gays from Massachusetts because of the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution.

Answer 1

As far as marriage goes, that is a states rights issue.

Answer 2

If a state wants to ban those things, then fine, do so. However, I do not believe that a state, nor the Federal government, has the right to impose punitive measures upon people who decide to then leave those states and have an abortion, marriage, etc. in other states. Look how many people form corporations in Delaware, for the love of Pete. If corporations can cross state lines to avoid regulation, then how are natural humans inferior to this principle?

The problem with banning such things as gay marriage, abortion, etc. is that you're attempting to legislate your version of morality onto a wider world. Then don't forget the Native American tribes: they are immune from state or Federal laws regarding such matters.

Answer 3

Determining marriage has typically been a state's rights issue. However, you seem knowledgeable enough to know that states cannot pass law that violate federal law, legal precedent or the Constitution. Having given this caveat, I would say that states retain the right to determine marriage as long as the law does not violate federal non-discrimination laws.

Abortion is a much thornier issue since there is a federal Supreme Court decision that set the legal precedent. However, that has not stopped a variety of western and southern states from putting anti-abortion referenda on the ballots. I would say that right now, Roe v. Wade is the law of the land, preventing state's from passing laws banning abortion. However, this
would not prevent states from banning the use of public funds for abortion.

Good question - it highlights the ambiguities that exist between federal law and states' rights.

Answer 4

Yes. The federal government needs to butt out. Stop having judges make laws instead of legislators or the people. The gays can have New England, and everyone else can keep traditional marriage. The states that want liberal values, like New England and some of the west coast, can, and the North Dakota's and Wyoming's, can have their conservative values.

You know, I give the Terminator great credit in California. Even though he agrees with gay marriage, the people voted 62-38% against it. He said he would no override the people's will. This is what we need more of.

However, NO way should southern states have to recognize gay marriage in New England states, and no way should the South in any way be forced to recognize gay marriage.

Answer 5

The issue about gay marriage and abortion are totally separate. It has been left to the states to decide what they want legal or not. So, if a state wants abortion legal, but not gay marriage, they have the right to do so, which is usually voted on by the people of the state.

Answer 6

I think you hit on the problem with states rights vs federal rights.

Liberals want states to control of gay marriage and yet they want federal government to control abortion.

Conservatives want states rights on abortion and yet they want federal government to control gay marriage.

How did abortion get taken away from the states was via the courts.

All public votes on gay marriage voted it down.

I say this what we should do.
1. Make civilian unions for couples and get the hot button of marriage out of it. So couples can make their choices couples can make.
2. Provide the same medical standards on abortion as any other medical procedure. ie a Minor can't be taken across state line with out parent or judge approving it. For those fetuses that are viable put the proof on the mother that this would be serious threat to her life to have an abortion. Also if the woman claims to be rape or molested the clinic reports it to the police as a crime.
For the morning after pill they have to get a scrip from the doctor.

I will not start accepting the thumbs down from the liberals.
Have a good day.

Answer 7

No. If we had a libertarian system, I would be all for it, but as long as the federal government wants to exist, they have responsibilities. And keeping our nation united is one of them. They have made it so women and blacks could vote (no, we wouldn't have those rights everywhere STILL TODAY if the feds hadn't stepped in) women to have access to safe healthcare, gays and other minorites to be protected from hate crime, etc...It just wouldn't work. But if it did, the right would have to respect the other side of the coin...legalized drugs in certain states, deregulated music and movies, etc... FTR, abortion was LEGAL when the constitution was signed

Answer 8

I think it should be left up to the states, however, I don't think a state should be forced to accept a same-sex marriage performed in another state if that state has a law against it. Just because Nevada has legalized prostitution doesn't mean Connecticut must allow it too.

Answer 9

Yes.

Abortion rights actually never should have made it to the US Supreme Court. It's been a state's rights issue all along.

The Constitution specifically states that any powers not delegated to the Federal Government are left to the states.

Answer 10

the Federal DOMA has to be overturned. It doesn't make any sense to allow States to determine if they will allow or ban gay marriage but then to refuse Federal recognition of gay marriages performed in states which allow them.