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

My short answer is "no", moreover let me explain. Before answering what I think the situation should be, it is reformative to look at what the situation is. Currently family law is a function left to a great extent to the accedes. States own the power to try who may marry, the legal lick required to do so, and what the legal consequences of that espousals atomic number 18 within the state. In all these emergences states differ from severally other. The state is limited in its actions, though, to the requirement of its own system as comfortably as the constitution of the United States. What those constitutions require is often a government issue of great debate, but the ultimate judge is the states highest court for results pertaining to its own constitution, and the tyrannical Court of the US for matters in the US Constitution. In either result the constitution arsehole be amended by a process laid out therein. So, for example, the US has ruled that a stat e may not forbid interracial marriages, or forbid inmates from marrying (except under make reasons). I am not aware of any argument claiming that the US Constitution currently forbids same-sex marriage, although there are arguments that it requires it either as matter of a fundamental rightfield to marry, or as a matter of equal protection. It has been noted that the federal government has banned polygamy, but I dont believe this is quite true. The US carnal knowledge is ultimately responsible for the laws in DC and the territories. It thus banned polygamy in Utah when Utah was a territory. The Congress as well as the power to decide whether to admit a impertinent state to the Union (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 panorama it had the power to ban polygamy in the states, this would not have been necessary. There is also the issue of section 1 from the above Article IV which chitchat to it Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. (Section 2 could also lead to some issues, but as it has been interpreted these issues come out minor). Here is briefly my understanding of how the SCOTUS has interpreted that clause, based primarily on my reading from Andrew Koppelmans book (see left sidebar) which devotes all of chapter 5 to this subject. Fulll Faith and ... ...ough a process they decided upon. As I said, Im not a heavy(p) fan of the state as sovreign concept, but its what we have right now. Unless we are going to abandon that concept, it is up to the state to deal with matters of how their own constitution should be interpreted. Other than prohibition (which many say in hindsight was a terrible idea) the only time we limit what a state can do within its own territory is when otherwise it would violate the right of an individual as a US citizen.In summary, if I could redeem the constitution as I saw fit, states wouldnt have rights and marriage indemnity would be set by the federal government. If we are going to circulate 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 provide 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.