Porteroso said:
He Hate Me said:
HuMcK said:
Why would it be struck down? The constant refrain from the court for a while has been something like "if Congress cares about an issue, they should legislate it". Hence the push to get Sinema and Manchin on board with "codifying" Roe after SCOTUS invalidated it. Here they are codifying the legality of same-sex/interracial marriage in the event the Court overturns Obergfell or Loving (both of which Thomas has openly declared are next on the conservative agenda).
Regulation of marriage is the proper domaine of the States. Not every contentious issue should be resolved in Washington. The Court's jurisprudence on the Interstate Commerce Clause is in need of an overhaul.
Marriage is probably a federal matter. It should never have been a government matter, but the government felt the need to get its grubby hands on it.
The Constitution guarantees certain base rights, among them liberty, and the ability to pursue happiness. Gays have a strong argument that marriage is something they want in order to live the lives they want to.
Also, once the government got its hands on marriage, it turned from a religious practice to a government institution, and the government must be fair.
You should note that if the government had nothing to do with it, gay marriage would have been possible in every state since long ago. Churches who would marry gays have been around a long time.
Marriage is not at all a federal matter. It has been the province of the several States from the beginning of our Union. As part of the States' powers to regulate health, safety, and morality, the States' were vested with the power to recognize marriage from the beginning. The first time that the Federal Government really got involved in marriage was Loving vs. Virginia. The outcome of that case was morally correct, but the Supreme Court waded into a water it should not have in order to correct a social ill--that being racial prejudice.
Later the Court looked to European law to strike down anti-sodomy statutes in Lawrence vs. Texas. Again, the Court invaded the province of the States and imposed the morality of a majority of nine people on the entire nation. The Court, if acting properly within its role, would have left the regulation of morality to the individual States.
The Court most recently expressed its desire to impose its own immorality on the entire nation in Obergfell in the name of "love" and specious legal reasoning. Although marriage and the regulation of marriage had been the province of the States for over 150 years, the Supreme Court fancied itself morally justified in overruling the States' power to say that marriage is solely between a man and woman. It took the Court over 200 years to find this power and right. The world was simply waiting on Anthony Kennedy to tell us that the Founders missed something important.
No, marriage is not a federal issue. Very little, actually, should be a federal issue. If not for Wilson, FDR, and Wickard v. Filburn and its progeny, very little would still be a federal issue. We need to overhaul SCOTUS power, ICC jurisprudence, and the federal bureaucracy and return important issues back to the States where those issues properly belong. Deciding every contentious social and moral issue in Washington DC is fracturing this nation.
Parenthetically, one wonders why the Court in Lawrence v. Texas--if the Court wanted to resort to foreign law in its analysis--did not look to Shari'a. Shari'a is equally valid as European law (save for British common law and, in Louisiana, the Napoleonic Code).
