Total Posts:26|Showing Posts:1-26
Jump to topic:

Marriage by State for Fed?

Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2011 2:04:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Romney had a somewhat interesting comment to make about banning gay marriage on a federal level. He argued that marriage laws should be consistent between states since a married couple can move from one state to the other.

Should marriage be enforced and defined on a federal level applicable to all states or should states be in charge of defining marriage? Does marriage licensing fall under the 10th amendment or the interstate commerce clause (or some other constitutional justification of congressional authority)?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2011 2:09:15 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Neither, they are both cluster****s. Remove law from marriage.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2011 2:22:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Marriage is definitely not interstate commerce. It would fall under the 10th Amendment so that each state can decide what does or does not qualify as "marriage."
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2011 2:33:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/13/2011 2:22:26 PM, mongeese wrote:
Marriage is definitely not interstate commerce.
Well, I wouldn't say definitely. There's always mail-order brides.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Tim_Spin
Posts: 446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2011 2:52:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Get em both out of it. State and federal governments trying to control citizen's abilities to enter into contracts is wrong on both counts.
Astonished, the talent agent asks the man what him and his family call their act.The man responds, "The Aristocrats!"
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2011 2:53:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
And to think I considered adding "and for the sake of this thread, let's not say 'neither' and keep this in political reality" to the OP.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2011 3:10:40 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
To play devil's advocate, an argument could be made from precedent and possibly constitutional clauses and amendments for federal over state control. Again, let's keep the goal posts within reality: the choices are dominance of state regulation of marriage or federal dominance. In policy terms, can congress tell states gay marriage is illegal?

In terms of precedent, the federal government is able to rule through all states that polygamy is illegal. Courts justified Congress' act using the fourteenth amendment equal protection and due process clauses to influence state regulation of marriage. Courts also dismantled state-based interracial marriage laws using the fourteenth amendment.

Constitutionally, if an amendment were passed related to federal regulation of marriage, the states would no longer have a 10th amendment defense.

State retain some powers of regulation, but the federal government can tweak them on a national level as they please.

Why shouldn't the federal government be allowed to define marriage and override state legislation or state constitutional amendments?
Tim_Spin
Posts: 446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2011 3:41:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/13/2011 2:53:50 PM, Wnope wrote:
And to think I considered adding "and for the sake of this thread, let's not say 'neither' and keep this in political reality" to the OP.

"Political reality" of course meaning within the false dichotomy that we must be controlled by some form of government, whether federal or state.
Astonished, the talent agent asks the man what him and his family call their act.The man responds, "The Aristocrats!"
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2011 3:48:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/13/2011 3:10:40 PM, Wnope wrote:
Why shouldn't the federal government be allowed to define marriage and override state legislation or state constitutional amendments?

...Because it would violate the constitution.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2011 3:54:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/13/2011 3:41:08 PM, Tim_Spin wrote:
At 8/13/2011 2:53:50 PM, Wnope wrote:
And to think I considered adding "and for the sake of this thread, let's not say 'neither' and keep this in political reality" to the OP.

"Political reality" of course meaning within the false dichotomy that we must be controlled by some form of government, whether federal or state.

Well, you can always go with option 3: complete civilian revolution overturning military and government and leading to lack of marriage on federal or state level.

However, I wanted to keep things a bit more realistic. This is politics, not philosophy.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2011 3:55:15 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/13/2011 3:48:39 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 8/13/2011 3:10:40 PM, Wnope wrote:
Why shouldn't the federal government be allowed to define marriage and override state legislation or state constitutional amendments?

...Because it would violate the constitution.

Would you mind addressing the rest of the post or at least expanding on that?

Was it unconstitutional to stop states from practicing polygamy?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2011 3:56:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
You have two choices-- One, we speak of what the laws should be. Two, we speak of what the laws are. There's no middle ground, OP.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2011 3:57:41 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/13/2011 3:55:15 PM, Wnope wrote:
Was it unconstitutional to stop states from practicing polygamy?

The constitution dictates a federal government of enumerated powers. Which enumerated powers authorized the polygamy move precisely and how?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2011 4:03:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/13/2011 3:56:31 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
You have two choices-- One, we speak of what the laws should be. Two, we speak of what the laws are. There's no middle ground, OP.

No, there is one quite reasonable middle ground.

Reality is a certain way at the moment. No amount of whining about libertarianism or communism will change that.

However, starting from reality, we can try to change the status quo in favor of what we believe laws should be.

In washington, there are two choices about how things are going down. That's the political reality.

If you want to go to the philosophy section, we can commiserate that the government has no right to interfere with marriage.

I want to have a discussion in this thread that focuses on relevant political issues with washington.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2011 4:09:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/13/2011 3:10:40 PM, Wnope wrote:
To play devil's advocate, an argument could be made from precedent and possibly constitutional clauses and amendments for federal over state control. Again, let's keep the goal posts within reality: the choices are dominance of state regulation of marriage or federal dominance. In policy terms, can congress tell states gay marriage is illegal?

No, such would violate the Constitution.

In terms of precedent, the federal government is able to rule through all states that polygamy is illegal.

That violates the 10th Amendment.

Courts justified Congress' act using the fourteenth amendment equal protection and due process clauses to influence state regulation of marriage. Courts also dismantled state-based interracial marriage laws using the fourteenth amendment.

That would work, because it actually uses a power delegated to the federal government by the Constitution, which is enforcing the 14th Amendment.

Constitutionally, if an amendment were passed related to federal regulation of marriage, the states would no longer have a 10th amendment defense.

Obviously. However, such an amendment will likely not be passed.

State retain some powers of regulation, but the federal government can tweak them on a national level as they please.

Why shouldn't the federal government be allowed to define marriage and override state legislation or state constitutional amendments?

10th amendment.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2011 4:17:40 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/13/2011 4:03:23 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 8/13/2011 3:56:31 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
You have two choices-- One, we speak of what the laws should be. Two, we speak of what the laws are. There's no middle ground, OP.

No, there is one quite reasonable middle ground.

Reality is a certain way at the moment. No amount of whining about libertarianism or communism will change that.

However, starting from reality, we can try to change the status quo in favor of what we believe laws should be.
Contradiction.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2011 4:23:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/13/2011 2:09:15 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Neither, they are both cluster****s. Remove law from marriage.

Why must you always say things that make me radically disagree with you. If you remove law from marriage then there would be much difficultly enforcing justice and keeping order. The state and government has never actually done something pertaining to marriage to provoke my disapproval. Wait, you must be an anarchist......no wonder.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2011 4:24:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/13/2011 3:57:41 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 8/13/2011 3:55:15 PM, Wnope wrote:
Was it unconstitutional to stop states from practicing polygamy?

The constitution dictates a federal government of enumerated powers. Which enumerated powers authorized the polygamy move precisely and how?

At the time, the defense was not specific.

As devil's advocate, the modern argument comes from the Full Faith and Credit Clause: 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.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2011 4:25:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/13/2011 4:17:40 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 8/13/2011 4:03:23 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 8/13/2011 3:56:31 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
You have two choices-- One, we speak of what the laws should be. Two, we speak of what the laws are. There's no middle ground, OP.

No, there is one quite reasonable middle ground.

Reality is a certain way at the moment. No amount of whining about libertarianism or communism will change that.

However, starting from reality, we can try to change the status quo in favor of what we believe laws should be.
Contradiction.

Care to expand?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2011 4:32:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/13/2011 4:23:13 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/13/2011 2:09:15 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Neither, they are both cluster****s. Remove law from marriage.


Why must you always say things that make me radically disagree with you.
Because I'm a radical

If you remove law from marriage then there would be much difficultly enforcing justice and keeping order.
Undemonstrated.

The state and government has never actually done something pertaining to marriage to provoke my disapproval.
So you approve of gay marriage, and approve of forbidding gays to marry, and approve of interracial marriage, and approve of forbidding interracial marriage?
Kinky.

Wait, you must be an anarchist
False.

As devil's advocate, the modern argument comes from the Full Faith and Credit Clause: 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
That does not appear to be any sort of authorization to a federal ban of polygamy. It merely authorizes Congress to determine how you can prove the polygamy happened.

Care to expand?
Libertarianism, or communism, are both changes from the status quo in the laws that someone thinks should be.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Tim_Spin
Posts: 446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2011 4:42:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Realistic Hugh? Of course! The two main positions are who can unjustly stop others from entering into contracts, the federal or state government. And anyone who disagrees with these two faulty and unjustifiable positions is just being unrealistic?
Astonished, the talent agent asks the man what him and his family call their act.The man responds, "The Aristocrats!"
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2011 4:44:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/13/2011 4:32:08 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Care to expand?
Libertarianism, or communism, are both changes from the status quo in the laws that someone thinks should be.

I meant that in the sense of if your immediate policy goal is violent revolution.

If you want disband the united states government, that's fine, but it doesn't address the political reality of what is going to happen. Feel free to talk about it in philosophy or politics or wherever.

I am interested in a policy discussion relevant to current topics. You can talk about violent revolution elsewhere. Barring this violent revolution, marriage will be regulated by primarily state or primarily federal level.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2011 4:47:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/13/2011 4:42:01 PM, Tim_Spin wrote:
Realistic Hugh? Of course! The two main positions are who can unjustly stop others from entering into contracts, the federal or state government. And anyone who disagrees with these two faulty and unjustifiable positions is just being unrealistic?

Philosophically, you're just dandy. Personally, I don't think state or fed should regulate marriage either.

But that is not a political reality; it's a pipe dream.

I think that nearly all drugs should be legalized. Also a pipe dream.

This particular thread is focused on what is relevant to political reality.
Tim_Spin
Posts: 446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2011 4:57:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/13/2011 4:47:04 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 8/13/2011 4:42:01 PM, Tim_Spin wrote:
Realistic Hugh? Of course! The two main positions are who can unjustly stop others from entering into contracts, the federal or state government. And anyone who disagrees with these two faulty and unjustifiable positions is just being unrealistic?

Philosophically, you're just dandy. Personally, I don't think state or fed should regulate marriage either.

But that is not a political reality; it's a pipe dream.

I think that nearly all drugs should be legalized. Also a pipe dream.

This particular thread is focused on what is relevant to political reality.

How is this not relevant? Discontent on how any form of government controls marriage has been widely circulating in recent years especially with the incredible growth of the Libertarian Party(who by the way do not want to violently overthrow the government, but only seek to diminish it's violations of personal liberties and property rights.
Astonished, the talent agent asks the man what him and his family call their act.The man responds, "The Aristocrats!"
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2011 5:38:15 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/13/2011 4:44:16 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 8/13/2011 4:32:08 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Care to expand?
Libertarianism, or communism, are both changes from the status quo in the laws that someone thinks should be.

I meant that in the sense of if your immediate policy goal is violent revolution
There is no necessary link between "Violent revolution" and "Removal of legal status from marriage."
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.