[Causality1]

The gay marriage issue is a great example of exactly the opposite of your point. States one by one recognizing gay marriage and proving that it wasn't going to cause the collapse of society is the only reason it was recognized on a national level. The same process is currently happening with marijuana prohibition.

[achenatx]

the first amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

the federal govt should have zero benefits tied to marriage. By having benefits tied to marriage they have essentially established religions that have male-female marriage as the default religion of the country.

if taxes, inheritance etc were not tied to marriage and instead were done with standard contracts between 2, 3 or N people (civil unions). Then the marriage problem would go away.

[rayiner]

Your reading is basically that the first amendment prohibits an otherwise permissible state law because voters support that law based on their belief in Christianity. But it would be fine for voters to support a law based on their belief in say socialism or secular humanism. That’s exactly backward—it singles out religious faith as an improper basis for supporting an otherwise permissible law.

Regardless, that clause is about the federal government not interfering with official state churches (“establishments of religion”) which existed until the 1830s.

[pyuser583]

But that only happened after the Supreme Court ruled the Defense of Marriage Act to be unconstitutional.

[minikites]

>States one by one recognizing gay marriage and proving that it wasn't going to cause the collapse of society is the only reason it was recognized on a national level.

You're leaving out the massive fights from states that did not want to recognize gay marriage, which could have easily gone the other way. The same process will repeat with marijuana prohibition and the states fighting it may succeed this time. What would have happened if gay marriage stayed as a patchwork of legal statuses? What will happen in the long run when marijuana is legal in many states but continues to send you to prison for decades in others? This is not a stable situation and the exact reason we need the federal government to do things instead of leaving it up to the states.

[thesuperbigfrog]

>> we need the federal government to do things instead of leaving it up to the states.

Unless it concerns powers specifically given to the federal government by the US constitution that would be unconstitutional: "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." (10th Amendment).

If you do not like the laws in your state, vote to change the laws.

If you do not like the laws in other states, discuss and persuade the voters of those states to change their laws.

[rat87]

this is dead wrong

The constitution is a broad documented to be interpreted

It's not a step by step manual or grocery list

> If you do not like the laws in other states, discuss and persuade the voters of those states to change their laws. Or better yet and occasionally easier get the federal government to change the law for the whole country, benefiting everyone

[Causality1]

Why do you think the federal government is going to make smarter decisions than the average state government? I don't want to roll the dice on the feds making the right call every time. When the government makes a bad call I want the option of leaving and going somewhere less dumb. That's not an option if the dumbassery comes from Washington. It was federal overreach that made DOMA possible in the first place, as well as marijuana prohibition.

[minikites]

>When the government makes a bad call I want the option of leaving and going somewhere less dumb.

This is only an option for the most privileged among us. What are the options for someone who is gay and doesn't have the means to move to a less bigoted state?

[rayiner]

Moving to another state in America is something poor people do all the time. Regardless, does a modest cost in a small minority justify putting 9 elites in DC in charge of the moral law of the whole country?

The right of people to govern themselves is important even if we disagree with how they do it. Note the EU Human Rights Court came to the exact opposite conclusion a year after Obergefell, finding no right to marriage for same sexual couples under the EU convention on human rights.

If you look at constitutional law in western Europe, no country has a court that intrudes as much into social issues as the US Supreme Court.

[Causality1]

Far greater than the options of someone who is gay and would have to move to a different country instead of just a different state. For example, the existence of sanctuary cities for undocumented immigrants is entirely dependent on a lack of federal power to override the will of the states.