Comments on: FEDERAL MARRIAGE AMENDMENT

Comments on: FEDERAL MARRIAGE AMENDMENT http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/federal_marriage_amendment/ Online Journal of Politics and Foreign Affairs Wed, 25 Nov 2009 15:06:53 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: Chris Lawrence http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/federal_marriage_amendment/comment-page-1/#comment-2643 Chris Lawrence Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000 /?p=2237#comment-2643 Heck, that's even more overbroad than the 21st Amendment's leeway allowing the states to violate the interstate commerce clause. And what business of the federal constitution is it to regulate how a state court should interpret its own constitution or laws (beyond the supremacy clause)? How about "Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to require the United States or any state or territory thereof to give full faith and credit to a marriage consisting of anything other than the union of one man with one woman."? I'm not sure I particularly like interest-group amendments to the Constitution (or even the goal of this amendment, for that matter), but at least this one doesn't obligate the states to do anything they don't want to. (Actually, my preferred amendment would be "The 9th and 10th Amendments are henceforth to be printed in boldface. Furthermore, a mirror image thereof shall tattooed on the forehead of every individual required to take the oath of office under this Constitution. Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation." But I don't see that one flying for some reason.) --- Heck, that's even more overbroad than the 21st Amendment's leeway allowing the states to violate the interstate commerce clause.

And what business of the federal constitution is it to regulate how a state court should interpret its own constitution or laws (beyond the supremacy clause)?

How about "Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to require the United States or any state or territory thereof to give full faith and credit to a marriage consisting of anything other than the union of one man with one woman."? I'm not sure I particularly like interest-group amendments to the Constitution (or even the goal of this amendment, for that matter), but at least this one doesn't obligate the states to do anything they don't want to.

(Actually, my preferred amendment would be "The 9th and 10th Amendments are henceforth to be printed in boldface. Furthermore, a mirror image thereof shall tattooed on the forehead of every individual required to take the oath of office under this Constitution. Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation." But I don't see that one flying for some reason.)

---

]]>