Quote:
Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman
But the issue of gay marriage is not a federal matter; it is strictly a state matter and dependent on which states would ratify such legislation and how accepting the people are.
And I quote 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.
Unfortunately the Constitution does not mention anything about marriage so it will be entirely left up to the residents of whatever state gay marriage is proposed in.
However, I see it becoming more widely accepted sooner if it was brought before SCOTUS. In a legal view, marriage is nothing more than a binding contract between two consenting adults. If it is ruled as such, any legislation prohibiting is would be unlawful. This is one of those issues where it is a matter not of "If", but of "When".
|
The only problem with this as a "state's rights" issue is that, much like a driver's lisence, the benefits of a marriage lisence transfer from state to state. So, even with a patchwork of stipulations in marriage laws now a valid (hetero-) marriage retains it's legal weight. The 'Full failth and credit' of the state is recognized even in places where that union would not be legal (age of conscent being the one that comes to mind).
So it simply can't work as a state by state proposition with an extreemly mobile population.