The federal government only has those powers that the Constitution gives it specifically. All other powers are the domain of the states. Only when a power is within the 10th Amendment does the Supremacy Clause take effect Constitutionally. The federal government began getting involved in race relations via a series of post Civil War Constitutional Amendments, so the federal government has the authority to ensure racial equality under the law because it is undeniable that the legislative intent of those Amendments was to incorporate newly freed African-American slaves into society as citizens. Sexual orientation is not a protected suspect class, but race is, for that reason.
"So in short, the states have the ability to pass out marriage licenses, but will no longer have the authority to regulate who gets them if the federal government takes civil rights seriously."
Under your approach, we might as well abolish our federal system of government if states governments have nothing more than symbolic powers.
It is a very stubborn view to deny individuals equality, under the guise of upholding a federal system. Blind to the implications that such support for "state's rights" has, I might add. I believe it was also a fronted argument that "state's rights" was the real contention of the Civil War, not slavery.
I wonder if you would front the state's rights argument if it were your own rights on the line. Would you still argue that the 10th Amendment is being trampled on, with the passage of the 19th Amendment? It's a federal mandate for women to vote! No longer will the people of the states get to vote on whether or not women get to vote!
If you really did support not allowing women the right to vote, you would be anti-feminist at worst or blinded by this state-federal dichotomy at best.
But that's right, this is "the gays" we're talking about. They're different. Those gaaaaaaays.
It's been stated here that there was significant compromise made between the Founding Fathers, and it still applies to today in these battles between the states and the federal government. And this is true of gay marriage.
If the states want to receive the protection and money and support of the federal government, they will have to let Adam and Steve be able to marry. And if they don't like that, well, they can try secession again. :)
FreakyLocz14 said:
By your logic, same-sex marriage would become legal all across the United States in due time. Just as legalized racism has passed on, legalized homophobia will too.
Do you want to know what "legalized racism" or "legalized homophobia" truly is?
A system that allows its citizens to vote on the rights of others, based purely on who they are. Proposition 8 would be a great example of this.
FreakyLocz14 said:
I fear the day that the federal government grows to such a monsterous size that it can take away rights from the states in utter disregard of the 10th Amendment. If this what you are proposing, we might as well have all marriages performed by the federal government and open up more federal courts to death with the litigation that would create.
I like the hyperbole. Because there are homophobes out there who wish to deny gay couples the right to marry in their states under the pretensions of "state's rights," you then jump to the fear that the federal government will grow to a monstrous size that it will take away rights from the states (nevermind the issue being that of giving rights to gay couples to marry), "trampling" on the 10th Amendment?
All because of gay marriage?