SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Lane3 who wrote (72153)8/10/2003 12:01:11 PM
From: The Philosopher  Read Replies (2) of 82486
 
Seems to me that this matter is most appropriately dealt with state by state.

sThat's fine, except for Full Faith and Credit. In that case, one state can set a vital social policy for all the other states. Rhode Island can determine how Nebraska has to define marriage. That's even a greater abandonment of our basic principles of states rights than a constitutional amendment.

Maybe ideally would be an amendment that exempts certain things, including marriage, from FF&C. Then if Rhode Island wants to let gays marry, let them, but it doesn't affect Nebraska; that couple knows that if they go to Nebraska they're not legally married, so they make their choice. That would be one way of affirming states rights.

But consider the effect of a constitutional amendment as proposed vs. your proposal of no amendment and leave it to the individual states.

Given full faith and credit, we have two options.

Option one: don't pass a constitutional amendment; let FF&C govern. Then one state can dictate the definition of marriage for all the other 49 states and can deny those 49 states the right to define marriage for themselves.

Option two: that the Congress (with representatives from all 50 states) with the accord of 2/3 of the states' legislatures (which is what a constitutional amendment requires) can dictate the definition of marriage for any states that don't want to sign on to the amendment, which will be a maximum of 16 and could be just a coupleof states.

If you're really concerned about states rights, I think option two is a lot close to maintaining states rights than option one.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News