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).
Thomas is a jurist. He is a principled jurist. His commentary on the Dobbs decision regarding the dubious concept of
substantive due process, which is in his opinion is bad jurisprudence because it has been used to create via the judiciary all kinds of extra-Constitutional rights. The challenge with being a sophisticated, principled thinker is it demand complex analysis of diverse issues that does not play well in the environment of hysterical emotions that dominate twatter, regime media, etc.
The questions of abortion, marriage, and many others are rightfully state-level issues and do should not be decided at the federal level and definitely should not be decided by the courts.
I acknowledge marriage could be dicey because practically speaking it makes sense for each state to recognize the legal marriage of a couple married in another state. Given that, the first part of Section 3 of the bill makes sense:
- (1) full faith and credit to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State pertaining to a marriage between 2 individuals, on the basis of the sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin of those individuals; or
However, unless this is just cosplay, why even mention any qualifiers ... all that is needed is:
(1) full faith and credit to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State pertaining to a marriage between 2 individuals. So obviously this is just political theater, and I'll be honest I was pretty sure marriage was recognized across state lines - so not sure there is a problem to be solved.
This second part could be problematic:
- "(2) a right or claim arising from such a marriage on the basis that such marriage would not be recognized under the law of that State on the basis of the sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin of those individuals.
- "(b) Enforcement By Attorney General.The Attorney General may bring a civil action in the appropriate United States district court against any person who violates subsection (a) for declaratory and injunctive relief.
- "(c) Private Right Of Action.Any person who is harmed by a violation of subsection (a) may bring a civil action in the appropriate United States district court against the person who violated such subsection for declaratory and injunctive relief.
This implies that if a right related to marriage in California does not existing in New York, then the Attorney General should intervene and enforce California's "rights" on New York, which is clearly unconstitutional.
Practically, again this is just political cosplay theater that is not solving actual problems and wasting our tax dollars. There is not a single movement in the United States to outlaw gay marriage, and the question of inter-racial legality is laughable. Only non-self-aware Democrats can talk about this with a straight face.
If we want to move toward returning to having a serious country with a serious legislative body then we need to start action serious and demanding our Congress act serious.