The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) should never have been passed if it was based on the federal definition of marriage.
Of course, there’s a political component. The Republicans reacted, as kids would have; they acted like children who had been denied the cookie jar for so many years.
But to leave the definition to the states on a federalist and conservative basis because of the Tenth Amendment sounds theoretically pure and noble, but never forget the importance of full faith and credit that the states grant to the acts of the other states.
Let’s see, a Tennessee driver’s license is honored in Illinois, but following different reasoning… What if Tennessee’s definition of marriage is man and woman and Illinois is consenting adults in a binding relationship? Can the Illinois couple own property in Tennessee? If they are in Tennessee in their property having relations is that sodomy?
As usual, there are lines that constantly interchange; for example, easy to say as the court did in Roe v. Wade. They decided on women’s rights and right to privacy. They said that abortion is legal, but science has expanded the view of when the baby (not fetus) is viable. Surely the court did not intend that a late term abortion of a viable baby. A living human that can survive the abortionist, then but minutes later be the dead. Becoming a victim of premeditated murder with a scissors cutting the spine.
Where’s the case to declare the latter not legal but the most despicable act of murder even though still legal and approved by our President, Planned Parenthood and the rest of the abortion community?
And, federalism fails on the marriage question because same sex marriage, with all its attendant features, cannot be legal in some states and illegal in others.
What does that do to the full faith and credit between states that is the basis of our whole federal union?
Both left and right better zip up their ideologies and do some real thinking, while we still have a society
…such as it is.
Contributor- Bunny Rabbit