Should Marriage Be Left To The States? Essay -- essays research papers

My short answer is "no", moreover let me explain. forward answering what I think the situation should be, it is helpful to look at what the situation is. Currently family law is a matter left to a great extent to the says. States have the power to decide who may marry, the levelheaded process selectd to do so, and what the legal consequences of that marriage are inwardly the state. In all these matters states differ from each other. The state is limited in its actions, though, to the requirement of its own makeup as well as the shaping of the United States. What those constitutions require is often a matter of great debate, but the ultimate judge is the states highest court for matters pertaining to its own constitution, and the Supreme Court of the US for matters in the US Constitution. In either case the constitution derriere be amended by a process laid let out therein. So, for example, the US has ruled that a state may not preclude interracial marriages, or fo rbid inmates from marrying (except under compelling yards). I am not aware of any argument claiming that the US Constitution soon forbids same-sex marriage, although there are arguments that it requires it either as matter of a key right to marry, or as a matter of equal protection. It has been observe that the federal government has ostracizened polygamy, but I dont believe this is quite a true. The US Congress is ultimately responsible for the laws in DC and the territories. It frankincense banned polygamy in universal time when Utah was a territory. The Congress similarly the power to decide whether to admit a new state to the pith (both these powers are in Article IV, Sec. 3). Thus Congress refused to admit Utah to the union unless its state constitution perpetually forbade polygamy. If Congres had thought it had the power to ban polygamy in the states, this would not have been necessary. There is also the issue of component 1 from the above Article IV which guarantee Full religious belief and Credit shall be given in each State to the humanity Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. (Section 2 could also result to some issues, but as it has been interpreted these issues seem minor). Here is shortly my understanding of how the SCOTUS has interpreted that clause, based primarily on my reading from Andrew Koppelmans check (see left sidebar) which devotes all of chapter 5 to this subject. Fulll Faith and ... ...ough a process they unflinching upon. As I said, Im not a big fan of the state as sovreign concept, but its what we have right now. Unless we are going to dispose that concept, it is up to the state to deal with matters of how their own constitution should be interpreted. other(a) than prohibition (which many say in hindsight was a terrible idea) the exactly time we limit what a state can do in spite of appearance its own territory is when otherwise it would violate the right of an individual as a US citizen.I n summary, if I could write the constitution as I saw fit, states wouldnt have rights and marriage policy would be dress circle by the federal government. If we are going to leave marriage policy to the states, as the constitution currently does, I see no reason to carve out an exception for same-sex marriage. States already have the requirement to go away equal protection in all of their laws including marriage, and I believe this would require same-sex marriage. I have no problem with somebody pushing for an amendment to the constitution if they see a change as necessary. I would hope the amendment would be narrowly tailored, though, to address the specific problem or problems it is designed to address.