Quote:
Originally Posted by hip hop bunny hop
I still have no idea why you're bringing up DOMA when discussing an amendment which would prohibit state benefits for marriage being conferred to same-sex couples.
Yeah, sure, you could argue that DOMA is contrary to the Full Faith & Credit Clause; but how is that relevant in regards to the proposed amendment?
|
Considering that DOMA is a law that defines what marriage essentially is on a federal level, any amendment that would regulate and impose federal mandate over state law has obvious relevance. If a state deems the union of a same-sex couple as valid and worthy of benefits then the implementation of any amendment would be a states rights issue. Currently the few states that recognize same-sex domestic partnerships also confer most of the same rights to those unions that opposite-sex couples enjoy, so the idea that an amendment would eliminate these rights would set a dangerous precedent in my opinion. If the federal government can override matters that have been traditionally restricted to state constitutions and jurisdiction, how exactly does that support the idea of a democratic process or states rights?