DOMA Ruling Stirs States’ Rights Debate

"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" isn't in the Constitution. It's in the Declaration of Independence.

There won't be any meaningful dispute within the "state's rights" movement. Virtually all of these people are hypocrites, who call for more power for states to legislate in a conservative manner, but who seek to use federal power to negate attempts by states to move in a liberal direction. This even extends to the Supreme Court where noted states' rights activist Antonin Scalia has repeatedly reversed position over issues like states adopting local drug laws that contradict more stringent federal ones. Most of the so-called "states' rights" movement nonetheless sees the federal government as the main vehicle for enforcing nationwide "morality" laws and they don't see their own hypocrisy. Not any more so than when they complain that the federal government is "too big", but demand a larger military, more police, border guards and federal response to natural and man-made disasters like the Gulf oil spill.

@Melvin: Please reread your Constitution. What you were referring to is known as the "full faith and credit" clause, and it is NOT an "amendment." It is a part of the ORIGINAL Constitution, Article IV, Section 1. It falls between the Article detailing the judiciary and the Article describing how to amend the Constitution. "Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescirbe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof."

Doesn't this ruling simply say that the federal government can't define marriage. SO if there is a federal mandate to force equal protection under the law (which is not lilely to happen under this Administration), which I thought was already in the constitution, wouldn't this just mena that the states would not have to honour it. I think someone needs to be defining what is meant by equal proetction under the law, fuck states rights. The state will fuck you over just like the federal government. The only difference between the reach of the federal governement and that of the state is that in your state you're just getting fucked over closer to home.

I have to agree with Melvin. A legal citizen of the USA should be entitled to the basic rights outlined by our forefathers in the Constitution. Among other things the right to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, freedom of religion, (etc.) and the freedom of two people who love each other to make a life together without fear of persecution and with full support of federal rights and benefits. State laws and constitutions should only concern matters that concern that particular state and not basic rights and freedoms. Too many states have amended their constitutions to ban marriage other than between a man and a women mainly due to the extremist religious right and their obedient sheep. If every state could pass their own laws they would soon secede from the union and we would be a nation forever divided. Together we stand, divided we fall.

Opponents of marriage equality for Gay couples speak passionately about “States Rights” and Federalism and so on … but the fact remains that MOST of the legal benefits, protections, and responsibilities of marriage are bestowed on couples by the FEDERAL government. They number 1,138 according to the Government Accounting Office (GAO). Most significantly they have to do with tax law and Social Security, so it simply wouldn’t do for a Gay couple that is legally married in Iowa to suddenly become UN-married once they move to a neighboring state. On the other hand, any heterosexual couple can fly off to Las Vegas for a drunken weekend and get married by an Elvis impersonator, and that marriage will be automatically honored in all 50 states, no questions asked.

Despite what Kagan says, the US Constitution mandates we ALL have EQUAL civil rights period. We need the Supreme Court to uphold that. Unfortunately many of the "judges" make deciions solely on their personal and hateful "religious" beliefs.

States Rights may be a good thing, but I worry about all these little 'fiefdoms.' What makes the USA strong is its unification of the States. There is also the law in our amendments that States must recognize the laws of other states. A marriage in one state is good in another. Just like our driver's licenses. Perhaps the Feds are overstepping their bounds, I don't know. But there must be unification of our laws. With the transience of our population what kind of misery would we be putting on ourselves by having all these different rules?