Please show me where the right to dictate social issues is given to the Federal government in the constitution.
Oh wait, you can’t. The “enumerated powers” of the federal government are spelled out pretty damn clearly in our constitution (article 1, section 8) actually and no where does it mention the right to designate who can and cannot get married.
That’s why I was okay with the original DOMA decision that the SCotUS made this last week. Even though this all could be settled by the Federal government completely phasing out estate taxes (because honestly, why should ANY of my friends be taxed if I choose to give them my belongings after I die), but in the end you have to remember that the 10th amendment is grand because you can leave your state if you don’t agree with their laws, but leaving your country is a hell of a lot harder…since most countries don’t exactly hand out amnesty to border jumpers.
Follow my 10th amendment logic here.
Since gay marriage is not something that the federal government should be a part of, then the states need to make those decisions themselves on a state by state basis in whatever way the state’s constitution dictates; whether that means a vote on a law in the legislature or a vote on a state constitutional amendment by the citizens of that state.
When a state makes a decision on gay marriage, whether for or against, the 10th amendment dictates that the federal government respect the individual state’s decisions which is reason #1 that I agree with repealing that one particular section of DOMA.
With that particular section in place, the federal government was essentially invalidating the 10th amendment rights of states to declare that gay marriage was legal within their states, by saying that the feds would not recognize the marriages as legal.
Marriage is not something that should be under the purview of the federal government, but as long as they are going to recognize marriage’s performed in states (and give those married couples “special” privileges…like higher taxes) they need to recognize the marriages that a state chooses to perform, whether a state okay’s gay marriage or nix’s it.
The federal government has to make a choice, either they recognize every marriage that a state allows, or they recognize none of them. When it comes down to it, you get your marriage license from your state, not from the District of Columbia.
In my opinion (and apparently that of the SCotUS) that particular part of DOMA was unconstitutional, but the rest of DOMA (which actively protects the 10th amendment of state’s on whether they recognize marriage’s conducted in other states) is certainly constitutional and should not be overturned.
Now of course the gay community (and the left) have swung to far over and they want to do the same thing to state’s that DOMA was doing originally. They want to invalidate their decision, as a state, to decide whether they want to legalize gay marriage or accept same sex marriages from other states.
The Proposition 8 SCotUS case only has one bright side to it, which would be the fact that the Supreme Court kicked it back to a lower court, meaning that it doesn’t set a national precedent for invalidating the 10th amendment powers of states to change their own constitutions, but knowing the completely illogical and emotional decisions of the left, I can see that this is not where they will stop. They truly don’t understand that the precedent they are setting could be a decidedly unhealthy one for them in the future if their movements fall out of favor in the future. Giving the courts the right to invalidate the votes of citizens in a state is not constitutionally sound.
They are concentrating on the wrong thing, as per usual. 12 states (plus D.C.) recognized gay marriage before they attacked the 10th amendment rights of California voters and 4 other states recognized same-sex civil unions. What they should be concentrating on is more state-level initiative’s, like the current one in my state of Arizona, and not on running to their big brother federal government to solve everything. I know that I, and other conservatives, would be a lot more comfortable with that.
And if you don’t like your state’s laws on the subject, I have a suggestion for those that don’t want to be an activist.