Channel List
Beauty & Self
Books & Music
Food & Wine
Health & Fitness
Hobbies & Crafts
Home & Garden
News & Politics
Religion & Spirituality
Travel & Culture
TV & Movies
We take forum safety very seriously here at BellaOnline. Please be sure to read through our Forum Guidelines. Let us know if you have any questions or comments!
Newest Members
Millsgoldberg, darwinhoran, Olusola Amina, Onmyown200, Kennyman
58332 Registered Users
Forum Stats
58,332 Registered Members
417 Forums
119,213 Topics
846,128 Posts

Most users ever online: 615 @ 04/22/15 10:11 AM
Top Posters (30 Days)
Nancy Roussy 215
Mona - Astronomy 128
"Rosie" 39
Angie 36
Lisa LowCarb / VideoGames 34
Lynne - ChristianLiving 24
Angela - Drama Movies 17
Susan Helene Kramer 16
Celestine - Baptist Editor 13
Korie - California/Yoga/Knitting Editor 12
Ad Income Supports Charity
Topic Options
#713498 - 09/11/11 02:43 PM State vs. Federal Rights
Rebecca - Short Stories Offline
BellaOnline Editor

Registered: 10/15/09
Posts: 1515
Loc: Wisconsin
I had to write a post on a controversial topic in school that the states had tried to rule on but was heading or had gotten to the federal level.

I want to post what I wrote and see your arguments for or against my stance. Since this is a controversial topic, please refrain from giving your personal moral, ethical, or religious convictions. This is reviewing on whether or not the states should have the right to regulate it or should the federal government as well as to why.

Anyone who does violate this will have the topic locked and others will not be able to participate and learn. This is not meant to cause trouble but to look at how our government works and our own history.

My post was on same-sex marriage.

The definition of marriage and the same-sex marriage issue has been one of the biggest issues in the political arena in the last decade. Traditionally, marriage was always assumed to be between a man and a woman. This view began to change as same-sex couples challenged state laws that prohibited them from getting married. The tension between the states and the federal government over this topic has escalated and continues to draw fire.

As the definition of marriage is not laid explicitly in the United States Constitution, the states have begun one by one to address this issue. As a unanimous decision has not been agreed upon by all states, many couples have tried to take it to the national level. The question on whether or not this topic should be dictated by the federal government has good arguments on each side.

In 1996, the Defense of Marriage Act was signed by President Bill Clinton which stated that it was up to the states to make the final determination on the legality of same-sex marriages as well as how to deal with those that were married in other states. The President went further and defined it in a limited sense at the national level. The same Act defined �marriage as a union between a man and a woman for federal purposes, such as claiming tax breaks for spouses and receiving deceased partners� Social Security benefits.� (1)

This is the argument that has been used that the federal government should be regulating the definition of marriage. Many federal policies such as taxes and benefits are structured around one�s marital status. Though the states might recognize a marriage, the federal government might not. Then the question arises if they are really married or not according to census records and official documents. After all, the congress can levy taxes by right of the Constitution, it should be able to determine all the criteria surrounding it. (2)

To many, having the states define and regulate the marriages is just fine as they consider the ceremony to be strictly religious and the constitution does address religion. Those that advocate state regulation cite the very first amendment as their justification. If marriage is a religious ceremony, then the federal government is in violation of the first amendment. (3)

This is a very important issue because it does cross the state and federal jurisdiction lines. The constitution did leave too much room for the states and the federal government to cross hairs. (4) The federal government uses marriage to determine many actions with the citizens of the United States. This gives them good reason to define marriage. Yet, the marriage ceremony has been around long before governments were which makes it seem more religious and localized than it does national.

The United States government is going to have to step in and make decisions that affect the state�s actions in regard to same-sex marriages. The world is different today than when the Constitution was formed. Someone could work for a company in a different state or move multiple times with their job. If they are in a same-sex marriage, they could be legal in one state and not in another. This affects health insurance policies, wills, and life insurances. It�s not just a state issue anymore. It�s something that will have to be finalized through the federal government whether the populous likes it or not.

If you get married in one state are you considered married in another? How does that affect your legal standing? There is a lot more here than just a matter of defining marriage. It�s a reflection of the major changes that are occurring in the country that are hitting religious, moral, ethical, economic, and political areas like few issues have ever done before.

Rebecca Graf

#740077 - 01/12/12 05:01 AM Re: State vs. Federal Rights [Re: Rebecca - Short Stories]
Angela J. Shirley Offline

Registered: 07/22/10
Posts: 6412
Hi Rebecca:

I know this is a very OLD post, but just wanted to say that we do appreciate this post and what you had to share.

I do plan on making it a habit to stop by to see what neat stuff you have posted.

Keep up the AWESOME stuff young lady wink
fishMy Blog: How To Survive Unemploymentfish

#767159 - 06/08/12 09:37 AM Re: State vs. Federal Rights [Re: Rebecca - Short Stories]
Jim Colyer Offline

Registered: 10/11/04
Posts: 1111
Loc: Nashville, TN
If we are going to remain a nation, we have to put federal issues above states' rights.
God Given Talent CD @ my site

#860519 - 03/28/14 10:29 PM Re: State vs. Federal Rights [Re: Rebecca - Short Stories]
Clipping Path Specialist Offline

Registered: 04/02/13
Posts: 6
Here states' rights is most important part.


Moderator:  Vance - Crime Editor 

Want to reply? Register as a Forum Member - it's quick, free and fun!
Brand New Posts
2018: On this day . . .
by Mona - Astronomy
1 second ago
What are you looking forward to today?
by Angel S. Class
Self Development
37 minutes 59 seconds ago
What did you SPEND money on today?
by Angel S. Class
Frugal Living
53 minutes 9 seconds ago
Where are you and how is the weather?
by Angel S. Class
55 minutes 25 seconds ago
Lisa's Daily 10pm EST / 8pm MST Meditation
by Lisa LowCarb / VideoGames
Today at 03:11 PM
Citizen Science in the Electronic Age (updated)
by Mona - Astronomy
Today at 10:37 AM
by Nancy Roussy
Sleep Disorders
Today at 06:16 AM
Did you dream last night?
by Nancy Roussy
Today at 05:44 AM
Bode and Bode's Law
by Mona - Astronomy
Today at 05:23 AM
Canis Minor – the Lesser Dog *new article*
by Mona - Astronomy
Today at 04:59 AM
Register to Post!
Want to post? For security reasons you need to Register as a Forum Member. It's quick, easy and free!
Forum Activities
Book Clubs
Trivia Contests
Who's Online
1 registered (Mona - Astronomy), 91 Guests and 3 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Ad Income Supports Charity

| About BellaOnline | Privacy Policy | Advertising | Become an Editor |
Website copyright © 2016 Minerva WebWorks LLC. All rights reserved.