Leave it to the States!
| July 14th, 2004From the paper I read when I eat my morning Cheerios , The Wall Street Journal, advising a “No” vote on the Allard-Musgrave amendment.
We’ll fly our own colors up front. We oppose the Allard-Musgrave amendment at the center of today’s procedural vote, on the grounds that it overreaches. Instead of some national definition of marriage, we’d prefer an amendment that reserves issues of family law for the arena where the Founders wanted such issues handled: the American people, acting through their elected state representatives.
So, the major point: leave it to the states.
Now a minor point:
Democrats led by Harry Reid agreed to allow the Senate to hold an up or down vote–but only on condition that no other amendment be considered.
I’m assume this means the Senate isn’t voting both versions I mentioned in my previous article. It sounds like the Dem’s forced the Rep’s to stick to the original two line version they worked so hard to bring forward– and then edit when they found even some Republicans don’t like it.
July 14th, 2004 at 10:39 am
Note also that the longer Senate version is itself watered down from the version that was earlier introduced in the House (HJR56): “Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, _nor state or federal law_, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.’.”
This comment was written by Mark Barton.Report this comment to the moderators
July 14th, 2004 at 11:09 am
Now that’s a version that shows they truly support states rights!
This comment was written by lucia.Report this comment to the moderators
July 17th, 2004 at 1:18 pm
So, marriage should be left to the States, eh? You might want to check Federal law on this; the Feds have claimed primacy on defining what’s a valid marriage and what isn’t since 1888 or 1892 or so; just ask the Mormons, who were denied citizenship if they should engage in polygyny. Marriage hasn’t been the property of the states for more than a century.
This comment was written by Ron Fox.Report this comment to the moderators
July 17th, 2004 at 6:42 pm
The feds defined it in a territory, not a state. Utah conceded as a condition to join the union. This is different from the feds defining it after they joined.
As it happens, Utah did not attempt to switch back after the joined. I have no idea what would happen under current law if they attempted to do so now that they are a state.
This comment was written by lucia.Report this comment to the moderators
November 5th, 2004 at 11:41 pm
Usted habla español
This comment was written by Sarah B Sterling.Report this comment to the moderators