Quote:
Originally Posted by epitome
Your argument would make sense if there wasn't one or two states getting gay marriage and other rights every year.
|
I actually applaud this. I'm a huge fan of states rights. However, due to the Constitution, reciprocity of other states is a requirement. Article IV, Sec 1, defines it.
Allowing a marriage that another state doesn't wish to recognize is asking for Supreme Court review (insert concealed carry laws, driver's licensing of foreign nationals, etc).
Just because State A says something is OK, doesn't make it national law.
Everybody has got to say it's OK and no one has to bring it before SCOTUS. Otherwise, it's just pissing into the wind until someone does.
BTW, you know just as well as I do that without some sort of Federal legislation (constitutional amendment anyone?), that not every state in the Union will accept gay marriage. There's the guaranteed liberal states of course, but on the other side, there's those guaranteed conservative states where it never will happen. That's why the federal push. Also, federal legislation is only binding until something overrides it. Care to be married where that contract can then be changed by a new group of legislators? They obviously have no desire to attack man/woman marriage, but you know there's plenty of conservatives that even if gay marriage were to pass, would come into the next conservative ruled congress and make a change. It's what they are most likely to do to the Healthcare Affordability Act (Obamacare) the first chance they get.
Constitutional amendments were made difficult to enact and just as difficult to change. Standard legislation goes the way of popular opinion as soon as the legislators are elected. They want to get reelected. They could give a shit how people felt a few years prior.