Republicans approve bill to protect same-sex marriage . . . give finger to Constitution and federalism

Bill passes with Republican support: It passed the Senate 61 to 36 in November with a dozen Republicans in support. On Thursday, dozens of Republican House members voted in support of the bill.

Once again, our spineless Republican Congress critters ignore our Constitution’s Tenth Amendment and its protection of federalism, our big tent system, and they agree to take a ■■■■ on our Constitution.

Keep in mind the succinct description of federalism as found in Federalist Paper No. 45

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.

The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State."


The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.___ Tenth Amendment


Nancy Pelosi and members of Congress overjoyed with ■■■■■■■■ on our Constitution.



Individual States do NOT have to legalize same sex marriage under this act. No violation of federalism.

Individual States DO have to recognize same sex marriages conducted in other States. Fully consistent with Section 1 of Article IV requiring States give full faith and credit to the acts of other States.

Article. IV.

Section. 1. 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 prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

And churches and non-profits that don’t wish to conduct or recognize gay marriage do not have to do so.

Perfectly Constitutional.


So, you agree no state is required to recognize a marriage between two people of another state if it violates the State’s marriage license requirements?

Huzzah- towards that shining city on a Hill. Let those opposed to Love gnash their teeth.

Actually, they DO have to recognize them. They simply don’t have to issue licenses if they don’t want to. But if somebody is married in another State, they must recognize it.

Sounds like a gay tax break. I hate taxes too.



Lawrence vs Texas has been called a landmark decision for lgbtq. It was about sodomy… not “love” . No one ever was prevented from loving by the government.

Sodomy. That’s what the LGBTQ landmark decision was about.

Not sure how anyone can be against this. How does it impact anyone negatively that a state has to recognize a marriage between a same sex couple.

Cue the where does it stop argument - marriage between a child and an adult, marriage between an adult and a chair, marriage between an adult and an animal.

1 Like

I admit i dont really know anything about the case but Whats wrong with anal sex? Weird to think any consenting sexual act between two adults of sound mind would be illegal.

I made no judgement statement on it. I simply pointed out that “love” didn’t need a victory. No one has ever prohibited love.

As soon as the lgbtq activists force a substantial decrease in age-of-consent laws.

1 Like

And then elephants. We will be able to marry elephants. That’s the next step. :joy:

Many states age of consent laws were already mind bogglingly low when Lawrence was decided.

Those were straight dudes passing those laws :thinking:. Nobody wonders why.


There is no provision in our Federal Constitution requiring one state to practice and enforce the conditions of another State’s licenses. As a matter of fact, the Tenth Amendment guarantees each state the authority to set its own conditions for the issuances and enforcement of licenses ___ the only exception being, that no state may issue a license which makes a distinction based upon race, color or previous condition of slavery.


What makes a Supreme Court opinion legitimate is when it is in harmony with the text of our Constitution and its documented legislative intent which gives context to its text.

Article IV Section 1

1 Like

What about Article IV, Section 1,?


By citing to reality. Mhmm.

Have age of consent in many states increased since Lawrence was decided? The answer is yes. How that is flailing is above my paygrade.

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.

1 Like