Important Notice: Our web hosting provider recently started charging us for additional visits, which was unexpected. In response, we're seeking donations. Depending on the situation, we may explore different monetization options for our Community and Expert Contributors. It's crucial to provide more returns for their expertise and offer more Expert Validated Answers or AI Validated Answers. Learn more about our hosting issue here.

How does the issue of gay marriage affect the principle of federalism?

0
Posted

How does the issue of gay marriage affect the principle of federalism?

0

Respectfully, for the state and Federal government, the principle of federalism is at the heart of the gay marriage debate. If fact, it is considered as important, if not more so (in light of the principle of separation of church and state) than the religious/moral debate on the issue. Here’s why: As ‘federalism’ is the concept of how power is shared between the states and the Fed, it has become a general principle that when there is a conflict between state law and Fed law, Washington D.C. wins. Federal courts operate on this idea and the Civil War was fought over it and helped to cement it. Allowing states to recognize and license gay marriage cuts to the core of the balance of power in our federalist system. If a state recognizes gay marriage, but the Fed does not, is the state thus superceded? If so, a significant ‘weight’ of power has been ‘slid’ over on the ‘scale’ of federalism to the Fed’s side. The states and the Fed are in a constant tug-of-war when it comes to their own auto

0

I don’t see how it could. Federalism can work whether the states and federal government recognize and define marriage or other relationships or not. If the central government defines same-sex marriage and obligates the states to accomodate it, it is no different than a bunch of other federal mandates to the states. If the separate states choose different definitions for the word, somebody does have to resolve the legal consequences. I presume the rules would require equal treatment of equal relationships so that, for example, if only one state in our hypothetical federal nation defined marriage to allow a person to “marry” a parent or child solely to transfer health-care benefits or inheritance without some tax penalty, the other states would not be required to accomodate or recognize that relationship. They would have to agree in legislation which relationships would be “equal” under the law. I don’t see any scenario where the principles of federalism are affected, just differences in

Related Questions

What is your question?

*Sadly, we had to bring back ads too. Hopefully more targeted.

Experts123