Federal Marriage Ammendment

[phk]

Should the Constitution be amended to define marriage solely as between a man and a woman? 

This is not asking how you feel about gay marriage rather who should decide. 

This is a question about legitimate power, politics, federalism and the Constitution.

[The Duke]

Of course it shouldn't, but it has to be anyway.  There's a Consitutional loophole that means if one state has gay marraige, all will have it in effect.  My prefernce would be to create a gay marriage exception to the Full Faith and Credit Clause, but there is no support for something so technical.

[nclib]

Different states can have different requirements on other regulations of marriage (age, relationship, divorce, etc.) --why should gay marriage be handled any differently.

[The Duke]

Different states can have different requirements on other regulations of marriage (age, relationship, divorce, etc.) --why should gay marriage be handled any differently.

I'm pretty sure you have to be a resident of a state to file for divorce in that state.  You do NOT have to be a resident of a state to get married there.  See: Las Vegas.  This is one major difference.

Its also a bit over the top to say that having gay marriage or not is equivalent to having loose or strict rules on divorce.

[A18]

Seems to me, if we actually followed the Constitution, there would be no need for a federal marriage amendment. The problem is activist judges.

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.

[J. J.]

My prefernce would be to create a gay marriage exception to the Full Faith and Credit Clause, but there is no support for something so technical.

I would also prefer basically an amendment specifying how the judicial branch can construe the US Constitution, prohibiting the "finding" of a right of same sex marriages (or of civil unions), based on the US Constitution.  I would also wish to see an override of the Full Faith and Credit Clause, indicating that one state does not have to recognize another states same sex marriage rules.

I specifically would not favor an amendment that:

1.  Prohibited Congress from recognizing same sex marriages for federal purposes, by statute.

2.  Prohibited a state constitution from creating a right to same sex marriages, within the particular state, or recognizing those of other states.

3.  Prohibited a state from enacting legislation from creating a right to same sex marriages, within the particular state, or recognizing those of other states.

[Richard]

Should the Constitution be amended to define marriage solely as between a man and a woman? 

This is not asking how you feel about gay marriage rather who should decide. 

This is a question about legitimate power, politics, federalism and the Constitution.

The Constitution needs to be amended so that:

- the federal government does not recognize marriage and any priviledges or rights that come with it

- provide a federalist solution that gives States the rights to define marriage for themselves,

- does not force other States to recognize other States' marriages if it is against their laws

- prohibits federal judges from ruling on any marriage case

[A18]

An amendment isn't actually needed, though.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.[/i]

So Congress should just remove the federal courts' jurisdiction over the Defense of Marriage Act, and that would do the trick.

[J. J.]

:

- the federal government does not recognize marriage and any priviledges or rights that come with it

The Federal government does this in some pension and Social Security cases.

[J. J.]

An amendment isn't actually needed, though.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.[/i]

So Congress should just remove the federal courts' jurisdiction over the Defense of Marriage Act, and that would do the trick.

That has been modified by the 11th amendment.  The principle that the courts can declare acts unconstitutional is established in Marbury v Madison.

[A18]

An amendment isn't actually needed, though.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.[/i]

So Congress should just remove the federal courts' jurisdiction over the Defense of Marriage Act, and that would do the trick.

That has been modified by the 11th amendment.  The principle that the courts can declare acts unconstitutional is established in Marbury v Madison.

The 11th amendment takes away power from the federal judiciary (or clarifies it, depending on your POV). It certainly does not give the courts any new power.

The principle that the courts can declare acts unconstitutional is not absolute, and were it absolute, it would itself be a direct violation of the Constitution.

[Richard]

:

- the federal government does not recognize marriage and any priviledges or rights that come with it

The Federal government does this in some pension and Social Security cases.

I know.  Abolish it.

[Smash255]

Absolutley Not

[J. J.]

An amendment isn't actually needed, though.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.[/i]

So Congress should just remove the federal courts' jurisdiction over the Defense of Marriage Act, and that would do the trick.

That has been modified by the 11th amendment.  The principle that the courts can declare acts unconstitutional is established in Marbury v Madison.

The 11th amendment takes away power from the federal judiciary (or clarifies it, depending on your POV). It certainly does not give the courts any new power.

The principle that the courts can declare acts unconstitutional is not absolute, and were it absolute, it would itself be a direct violation of the Constitution.

The Constitution does state:

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution ... .

It seen like not too much of a leap to say that to wield this power, the courts have the authority to note that the Constitution is supreme.  Otherwise, there would not be too much of a point in having a Constitution.

[A18]

Yeah, but that is included in "all other cases before mentioned."

I still see the point to having a Constitution. The Congress isn't going to strip the courts of their jurisdiction right and left, but on certain gray area issues, it would make sense.