5 Votes
Practical Application of States Rights
|
||
I was reading up on Rand Paul a little and I came across his stance on gay marriage, one that seems to be pretty standard for Tea Party-leaning candidates. It made me wonder what such a situation would actually be like? What would it actually mean if states actually did “decide for themselves” on the issue of same sex marriage?
If two people got married in one state and moved to a state that did not recognize their marriage… what would happen? It seems like that would require a huge change in how states recognized other states’ laws, and ignoring a piece of the Constitution to boot.
According to Lawyers.com,
Under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution, a state must recognize the public acts, records and judicial proceedings of every other state. It requires that any final judgment entered by the courts of a state acting consistent with state laws and with constitutional requirements, must be recognized and enforced in every other state.
On top of that, how can marriage be decided completely on a state by state basis when there are federal benefits to marriage… wouldn’t those have to be decided at the federal level? I do not think the federal government could deny marriage status (ie, when filing a tax return) to a couple that moved from Hawaii to Texas based on their current state of residence (this ignores the fact that Texas be obligated to recognize the Hawaiian marriage).
So how would we make it work?
Similarly tagged OmniNerd content:
- How do you get from Brigham Young to Mitt Romney?, by Jackson about 1 year ago
- Official Denial of Alien Ambassadorship, by BillMTracer over 2 years ago
- LDS Church Support of Proposition 8, by Brandon over 4 years ago
- Chuck Norris Chooses the American President, by VnutZ over 5 years ago
Print Friendly
Write an Article
Not so simple by zaccari
I have heard the call for state control of marriage before and I just can not see how this could possible make a workable (or desirable) solution. The reality is that you can not take such a universal act, apply substantially different rules to it in each state then expect every state to abide. What if the Texas got really squirrelly and decided to allow marriage to a corporation? I started with a blow up doll or another mammal but they do not earn/lose money and have expenses so it was not a reasonable example. Can someone else negate their decision? Would another state be held to the ramifications of that decision?
I liken it to the abortion debate. Does it really make sense to take that kind of decision and turn it into a state-by-state right? I do not want to turn this into a debate about the merits of ANY side of the abortion debate. I simply believe that such a fundamental decision should be done nationally.
On the flip side, I find it interesting that the federal government tries to mandate much less important decisions. Does anyone believe that it should necessarily be a national decision what the highway speed limit is? By stopping federal road dollars for those states who exceed certain rules, the government clearly attempts to control this without finite legislation.
Prejudice by NastyPrincess
The solution to all this is simple. We need to adhere to the concept of “Separation of Church and State” and stop the descrimination that has been allowed to rage on for entirely too long in this country. There is no room in our constitution for religious belief when taxes are concerned. There is no reason, other than twisted religious belief, for any two people not to be granted the same rights of marriage that my husband and I have been granted.
The populace of this country needs to grow up and put away their prejudices. No one’s asking hetero folks to “hop the fence” or even approve, but we are asking for tax payers to be allowed the same rights of marriage. Gay and lesbian dollars and earnings are no better or worse than any other tax payer’s dollars…..and they sure would enjoy all abuse the IRS could heap onto them if they didn’t pay their taxes. Marriage should not be denied any tax payer.
Why should it be a state issue? by scottb
What would it actually mean if states actually did “decide for themselves” on the issue of same sex marriage?
Why should gay marriage be a states-rights issue? We don’t let states decide whether interracial marriages are acceptable. We don’t let them decide whether Catholics should be able to marry Jews.
Paul and the other teabaggers love to cry “states rights”, when what they really mean is, “I think there are enough fellow bigots in my own state to get away with it.”