TRJF;
I am not sure if you are still reading this thread but I have a legal question for you. Something I read in Chief Justices Roberts dissent caught my attention. He said:
"Although the policy arguments for extending marriage to same-sex couples may be compelling, the legal arguments for requiring such an extension are not. The fundamental right to marry does not include a right to make a State change its definition of marriage. And a State’s decision to maintain the meaning of marriage that has persisted in every culture throughout human history can hardly be called irrational. In short, our Constitution does not enact any one theory of marriage. The people of a State are free to expand marriage to include same-sex couples, or to retain the historic definition."
It is my understanding the federal government may only compel the states in two ways:
1. By means of the Commerce Clause
2. By means of the Supremacy Clause
The issue of same sex is a domesticity issue under the 10th Amendment and thus does not fall under the Commerce Clause. As such it would require the Supremacy Clause to compel the States to change their definitions, but the Supremacy Clause requires a federal law passed by congress which is to override the States. Saying same sex persons have a right to dignity and security that compels the states to permit their marriage does not follow as it is not compelled by the Commerce or Supremacy Clauses. Perhaps you are seeing something I missed?
I am not sure if you are still reading this thread but I have a legal question for you. Something I read in Chief Justices Roberts dissent caught my attention. He said:
"Although the policy arguments for extending marriage to same-sex couples may be compelling, the legal arguments for requiring such an extension are not. The fundamental right to marry does not include a right to make a State change its definition of marriage. And a State’s decision to maintain the meaning of marriage that has persisted in every culture throughout human history can hardly be called irrational. In short, our Constitution does not enact any one theory of marriage. The people of a State are free to expand marriage to include same-sex couples, or to retain the historic definition."
It is my understanding the federal government may only compel the states in two ways:
1. By means of the Commerce Clause
2. By means of the Supremacy Clause
The issue of same sex is a domesticity issue under the 10th Amendment and thus does not fall under the Commerce Clause. As such it would require the Supremacy Clause to compel the States to change their definitions, but the Supremacy Clause requires a federal law passed by congress which is to override the States. Saying same sex persons have a right to dignity and security that compels the states to permit their marriage does not follow as it is not compelled by the Commerce or Supremacy Clauses. Perhaps you are seeing something I missed?
