Steve argues that we need an amendment stating the following:
(1) The United States Constitution shall not be construed to require the federal government, or any state or territory, to define marriage as anything except the union of one man and one woman.[7](2) The United States Constitution shall not be construed to require any state or territory to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of another state or territory.
But why give the imprimatur of the Constitution to heterosexual marriage. Why not just say, "The United States Constitution shall not be construed to require any state or territory to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding respecting marriage under the laws of another state or territory."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
That's pretty much what I had to say back in February.
Well, the problem with an amendment like that is that then you could be married in Massachusetts and not in California and then again in Mississippi but not Illinois. That creates a bit of a problem. Some states could become havens for dead-beat dads. I guess that's an unlikely, worst-case senario, but I think it's important to make sure that a court declaration in one state carries through to the others.
wouldn't this be something of a disincentive for heterosexual marriage as well? at the very least, wouldn't it create all kinds of logistical problems for couples (homo- or hetero-sexual) who marry in one state and then move to another, where their marriage is no longer recognized unless they go through the whole marriage procedure again?
Post a Comment