Forgot the link!

http://time.com/3476241/ted-cruz-constitutional-amendment-same-sex-marriage-laws/

I doubt the federal is going to relinquish any of there power - but who the heck knows - I have seen some things in our country lately that I never would have imagined.

Marriage is classified under interstate commerce... Because of this, the SCOTUS had no choice but to say that it was to be left to the states and their courts. As it is their's to do with as they please.

Here's my two cents. It is not commerce, interstate or otherwise. Also, the government has no business in marriage. Marriage is a covenant and the government has no business defining, licensing or undoing marriages. Even if it did have the legitimate right to do that, the Federal government does not. If government is going to regulate marriage, it should be on the State level or even lower.

Just my two cents.

I think the government should stay out of marriage altogether. Unfortunately that means I don't get a tax break for being married, but I'd rather that be the way then have the govt make rules about marriage.

I wasn't debating gay marriage.

I was merely pointing out if the supreme court rules the registry can't exist as it does now I can see states fighting in a similar way to allow their SO laws to stay intact.

Although maybe marriage is different.

As Independent stated, marriage is a business contract, it is regulated and you have to get a 'permit' to marry, they like to call it a license. This ensures that married folk get tax breaks and other combined things. And it also means that when they divorce or dissolve that marriage contract that someone can then referee the proceedings.

This really all boils down to money and property. Tax breaks are money, combined insurance is money, the license fee is money, the court and attorney fees are money. Money is state to state commerce cause every other state recognizes most marriages, thus making it constitutionally a state issue, not a federal one, which is why SCOTUS refused to hear the cases from all those states.

That makes sense about marriage being a contract, etc.

And it's always about money.

As far as taxes go, marriage should not even really be considered. If people are dependent upon you, you claim them. It should not really matter if they are related in some way or not. They are in your household and that is good enough.

As for divorce, couldn't they make laws that apply to any relationship, regardless of the nature? In other words, you are filing a dissolution...a dissolving of the relationship. If marriage is merely a contract, then a license is not needed. A license is simply another tax, even though they don't call it that.

I agree that it does boil down to money.

As for the registry, with all the fees involved, I cannot help but wonder if that isn't also just about the money. Think of the revenue they would lose! It would be interesting to see what the states would do if SCOTUS declared it unconstitutional.

Wisconsin, if marriages being recognized across state lines makes it state commerce, wouldn't that be Fed then since it would be interstate?

Nope, because the constitution states that all interstate commerce was to be handled by the sovereign states of the republic. Which is the United States, we are supposed to be a 'republic', we are not really that anymore because of the federal government over stepping their authority.

To really floor you, there aren't supposed to be ANY Federal Statutes at all. This was their first overstep. They have been slowly leeching the power of the states since the world wars of the early 20th century.

Like I have said in the past, the SO issues are just the tip of the iceberg a small pawn in the grand scheme of things where those that are 'undesireable' and easily rallied against are the first targets with the assistance of propaganda. They used this same tactic in Germany when they were gearing up for taking the land of the jews and moving them all to the ghettos, then on to the camps. Propaganda stating that the jew was the reason that their state was so poor, that they were the ones taking all the money because many of them were business owners. The disdain and strife caused by the propaganda campaign by the rising third reich started a domino effect that is being repeated over and over. The same is being practiced here, against SOs and other 'undesireable' type groups of people by those in power. Think of the world as a gigantic chess board and there are 10 different players, each making moves to manipulate the other to do something that will be favorable to them. This is the world we live in.

As for couples that weren't married but lived life as if they were. So they acquired property and other things, when that relationship is dissolved unless there is an amicable break up it can end up in court, having a judge decide the fate of the two people's joint property. So you are right, a license is just another tax, a tax that was without representation, other than the fact that our elected officials created the law and we keep voting in the same kinds of people, crooks. Vote all incumbents out! If they are always freshmen then there will be no upper classmen or anyone with '20 years on the hill'. Go get a friggin' job like the rest of us and see how happy you are with the laws you have created.

I hear you, Wisconsin.