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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: combjelly who wrote (198462)8/30/2004 5:42:44 PM
From: TimF  Read Replies (1) of 1574122
 
It would be difficult because all of the case law to date has supported that right.

There have been court decisions to compel states to allow for such marriages even without other states already allowing them.

I don't see the point of amending the Constitution or attempting to over-ride states rights on the off-chance that something might be a problem.

I think it is a near certainty, not an off-chance.

Of course a constitutional amendment could be worded so as to re-enforce the states legislatures being in control of the decision, without centralizing the decision to a national level. You solve the one problem (activist judges), while leaving another (strongly different definitions of marriage on the state level and federal, or in different states), in order to prevent a third (greater centralization of government power) and in order to make the amendment politically palatable to a large group to give it some chance of passing.

Tim
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