Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticCat
Is the slippery slope that it was a federal court that ruled on a matter that should be left to the states? (And if so, didn't the Fourteenth Amendment and Loving v. Virginia start us on that slope?)
I'm just trying to make sure I understand where you're coming from.
|
Loving vs. Virginia was a correct decision and a relatively easy one to make in hindsight. This was more about race and not a definition of marriage as it relates to man and woman. It did not address gay marriage nor was it considered to have done such.
The 14th Amendment was primarily concerned with apportioning 1 man/woman 1 vote. It overturned the Dred Scott decision. Again it does not address the claim for gay marriage unless one wants to cite the equal protection clause which I believe is more of an equal protection of a persons voting rights. Using due process is a huge stretch in my opinion.
So yes, I believe that states rights were infringed by the Federal judge in this decision as the state simply defined their definition of marriage. In this instance one's voting rights are not infringed nor was their due process My argument is that either the state can define marriage or it cannot. If it cannot then there is nothing that will not be litigated as an allowed marriage (polygamy, bigamy, group/communal, etc). This is the slippery slope. So if a state wants to endorse gay marriage that is fine with me it also cuts the other way if a state does not allow it.
I believe there are certain things that the Federal Govenment should have jurisdiction over. Interstate commerce, the common defense, the interstate highway system, foreign exchange (import/export controls) among others. Much/most of what is left should be the purveyance of the state.