Liti-Gator Wrote:
Apr 01, 2013 1:28 PM
The const doesn't state ssm can't be allowed, whcih is why it is up to the states. The const takes no position on ssm either way, so it is left to the states and their elected reps to define marriage, as they have done. it isn't up to the court to decise, when tyhere is nothing in the const to support creating ssm or any other kind of marriage. Congress can define marriage as far as benefits go, because the federal govt is the one paying the benefits based on marriage definitions. It doesn't have to pay benes at all, if it doesn't want, so it can certainly attach whatever strings to benes it wants, by defing them the same way that marriage has been defined for thousands of years. Scotus should be 9-0 that there is no ssm definition in...