4 ms·

It’s because the Constitution has nothing to do with marriage - so any laws on that are reserved for states to legislate. The lack of uniformity would be a mes

It’s because the Constitution has nothing to do with marriage - so any laws on that are reserved for states to legislate. The lack of uniformity would be a mess, though, so Congress should pass a constitutional amendment. It looks like they might have the votes.

mgarfias 4y ago
you would _THINK_ it would be covered by a combo of 9A and 14A (both equal rights, and P&I). This shouldn't be complicated. But as far as a gay-marriage-amendment, i'm against. I just don't think its up to the gov at all to dictate who can be married. Just honor the damn marriage contracts like you do all other contracts.
- krapp 4y ago
  >But as far as a gay-marriage-amendment, i'm against. I just don't think its up to the gov at all to dictate who can be married. Just honor the damn marriage contracts like you do all other contracts. But the only way that government would honor all marriage contracts equally, treating them like any other contract, is through a Constitutional amendment declaring gay marriage equal to straight marriage. It only existed to begin with because it was implied to be a Constitutionally protected right. Because the timeline we actually live in is the one in which the government already dictates who can't be married, precisely because the Constitution no longer forbids them from doing so.
- mmazing 4y ago
  You would also THINK that we don't need an amendment to state that women should be able to vote, or that an amendment that the color of your skin shouldn't restrict your ability to vote ... But that's the world we live in apparently. Don't let perfection be the enemy of progress.
jfengel 4y ago
The Constitution does have to do with marriage. The Full Faith and Credit clause refers to "public acts and records", which is precisely what marriage is.

4 ms·

It’s because the Constitution has nothing to do with marriage - so any laws on that are reserved for states to legislate. The lack of uniformity would be a mes

by wrycoder 4y ago

mgarfias 4y ago
you would _THINK_ it would be covered by a combo of 9A and 14A (both equal rights, and P&I). This shouldn't be complicated. But as far as a gay-marriage-amendment, i'm against. I just don't think its up to the gov at all to dictate who can be married. Just honor the damn marriage contracts like you do all other contracts.
- krapp 4y ago
  >But as far as a gay-marriage-amendment, i'm against. I just don't think its up to the gov at all to dictate who can be married. Just honor the damn marriage contracts like you do all other contracts. But the only way that government would honor all marriage contracts equally, treating them like any other contract, is through a Constitutional amendment declaring gay marriage equal to straight marriage. It only existed to begin with because it was implied to be a Constitutionally protected right. Because the timeline we actually live in is the one in which the government already dictates who can't be married, precisely because the Constitution no longer forbids them from doing so.
- mmazing 4y ago
  You would also THINK that we don't need an amendment to state that women should be able to vote, or that an amendment that the color of your skin shouldn't restrict your ability to vote ... But that's the world we live in apparently. Don't let perfection be the enemy of progress.
jfengel 4y ago
The Constitution does have to do with marriage. The Full Faith and Credit clause refers to "public acts and records", which is precisely what marriage is.