Re: [UUPoly-L] Poly reality

[polyfi@comcast.net]

Cat, You've given some good answers here lately about "reality", but on this one, I'll have to disagree..

In regards to marriage, federal "equal protection of the laws" may not apply because "marriage" regulations have always been a state responsiblity to define and control.
A recent Supreme Court decision, I believe affirmed this, in regards to the new Massachusett's laws.


This is why many states are trying to pass laws that define legal marriage as being between one man and one woman.  So, if gays or lesbians can marry, or get a "civil union" in one state, it will not apply in their state. Because states are not required under our Constitution to accept things done legally in one state, in their state, IF that practice has been established as illegal there.

For example, it IS legal to gamble, and practice prostitution in the state of Nevada.  But,  let's say, if I were  a Nevada resident (I'm not), and move to Missouri, I can't legally gamble in most places, and cannot practice prostitution in Missouri, even if I carry a license to do so in Nevada.

OTOH, my Nevada drivers license is accepted in Missouri, because it's legal for me to drive in Missouri, it hasn't been outlawed, cars and driving are still illegal.  I believe that, if a state would outlaw SUV's, then SUV's wouldn't be allowed to enter from another state, unless it restricted commerce.  Then it would perhaps be covered/protected by Federal Laws.  Federal laws often trump state laws, such as what we see when states authorize medical marijuna use, and federal laws do not allow it.  

Better to trust states to give the most freedom (nowadays, it was not always that way).
Dave

-------------- Original message -------------- 
From: "Catherine Deville" <catdeville@cox.net> 

> Dave said: 
> <> controls, let either cities or states set them, not the federal government. 
> Then people can naturally move, leave those places that are just "too bad, 
> or too strict for them. Another example: If we let states set the marriage 
> standards, and whether gays and lesbians may marry if they choose (not just 
> civil unions), then gays may move to those states that allow them to marry, 
> and avoid those that do not. >> 
> 
> The problem with that, and the federal legislators know it, is that allowing 
> same sex marriage in one state opens up Interstate Commerce constitutional 
> arguments which compel other states to acknowledge that marriage. That 
> precedent was established in the 60s when that constitutional provision was 
> used to strike down the laws prohibiting "colored persons" and "white 
> persons" from marrying. 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________ 
> The UUPoly-L mailing list has public archives. 
> Please keep that in mind when deciding how much to reveal about yourself. 
> UUPoly-L mailing list 
> UUPoly-L@uupa.org 
> http://www.uupa.org/mailman/listinfo/uupoly-l