Same-Sex Marriage should be a STATE issue Kristi Le, Alston Buckaloo, Charles Dixon, Robert Badillo

The reason that same sex marriage should be left up to the state is because, first off, marriage is a license, second, the 10 th amendment, and lastly the 14 th amendment.

Underlying Assumption 0 Assuming that states should decide about legalizing gay marriage, because the opinion of others varies from state to state. Also marriage is a license issued by the State that should be exercised by the State Government due to the 10 th Amendment. By making it a Federal Law you would be stripping the State Government of their Constitutional Rights.

0 Marriage is a license that falls under the jurisdiction of the state. 0 Compared to the hand gun license, it is a license that you have to apply for.

Do you know what the 10 th amendment states? “The Constitution's principle of federalism by providing that powers not granted to the federal government by the Constitution, nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to the States or the people.” It is necessary to protect the tradition of home rule, and the unique characteristics of various states and their communities.

Fourteenth amendment addresses citizenship rights and equal protection of the laws, and was proposed in response to issues related to former slaves following the American Civil War. Therefor, no where in the constitution does it state that Marriage is a right Granted to every citizen. Refer back to the first slide, marriage is a license that Is applied for with certain requirements.

You say for Equal rights? 0 Yes we should allow equal rights, but what about the people who don’t agree with same sex marriage? We should be able to hear them out also and take in their opinions for consideration. 0 So let’s say we allow the government to decide whether same sex marriage is allow or isn’t allowed. With the government being the ultimate decider, one party won’t be happy regardless. If government decides to allow same sex marriages, the people who oppose it won’t be happy, if the government doesn’t allow it, then the people who wants it, won’t be happy. So why not let the states decide base on their own cultural preferences and beliefs. That way at least, some states can allow it, and others don’t. If you don’t agree with your state, then move. We much rather that, then have only half the people happy

Okay, for equal benefits you say? 0 You say, that you want the federal government to take control of this matter BECAUSE the government currently has it to where the states decide on this matter, (so in technicality, the federal government allows same sex marriages..) However, some states don’t recognize same sex married couples, therefore “not allowing accesses to benefits” 0 Working for the insurance, there is a loophole around this. To claim someone’s life insurance, or benefits.. All your spouse needs to do, is to put your as their beneficiary, (Beneficiary meaning the people who can access your benefits should anything happen) This goes the same in the military, you decide who your beneficiary is, It can be your mother, it can be your friend… it can be whoever you choose

Article 6 0 The second clause of Article 6 is called the Supremacy Clause. 0 The Constitution states that any federal laws made according to the Constitution are supreme laws. 0 Any state law that goes against federal law is invalid. 0 However, there are not any laws stating marriage is a right for everyone. Also, making such a law to override the states power of marriage licenses will be unconstitutional. Refer to the 10 th Amendment.

So, all in all… We feel as if the States should be able to decide whether they want to allow same sex marriage, or not because of the fact that marriage is a license, applied for not granted, along with the fact that the constitution states that each individual states has its own rights, and that equal rights can not be denied for race, where sexuality is different from race.

Work Cited 0 Legal Information Institute. "14th Amendment.". Cornell University.,n.d. Web. 02/24/14. 0 Jon Roland. "Intent of the Fourteenth Amendment was to Protect All Rights. “,n.p., 09/24/2000. Web. 02/24/ Jacob Combs. "Huffpost Gay Voices.“,n.p., 10/31/2012. Web. 02/24/ Mass Mutual Financial Group "Understanding Life Insurance.“,n.p., n.d. Web. 02/24/ Laws "Article 6." Laws.com.,n.p., n.d. Web. 02/24/2014..