Isn't there a potential Federal role if a State refuses to recognize a gay marriage conducted in another State, though?

Your statements about the judicial branch are not correct. The judiciary is a coequal branch of the government established by the Constitution with the executive and legislative branches. Under Article III, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, the judicial power is vested in the Supreme Court, and such other lower federal courts as the Congress may establish, with jurisdiction over cases and controversies arising under the Constitution and substantial cases where there is diversity of citizenship subject to the limitations of the Eleventh Amendment. The Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the interpretation of the Constitution, and its decisions are binding as law, until overturned by the court or by constitutional amendment.

The power of the judicial branch is limited; and the federal courts have always been self-limiting under long-standing provisions of abstention and principles of comity; and more recently under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923); District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983). Even so, Congress has the power to further limit the jurisdiction of the federal courts not expressly conferred, albeit that it would not be in its interest - or the interest of the nation - to do so, for without the power of the judiciary, the acts of the legislative branch would not be enforceable except by unchecked executive power. The power of the judiciary is at the very core of the constitutional system of checks and balances. As Chief Justice Marshall wrote: “The very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the laws. . .” Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803). The sword of justice cuts both ways, and in its sway guards over our individual rights and liberty. It is the same today. Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004).

NB: Following the Supreme Court’s decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the Congress removed the court’s jurisdiction over military tribunals by enacting the Military Commissions Act of 2006, Pub. L. No. 109-366, 120 Stat. 2600 (Oct. 17, 2006).

Only if the Supreme Court again wrongly draws its authority from the States Bill of Rights, and once again "dictates" law from the bench in a very much unconstitutional mannerism, of allowing these limits of Federal Power to be inverted and limit the States/peoples will. For indeed...the ONLY place the concept of marriage and its defining characteristics are mentioned are in the States Book of Laws, for NO words are to be found in the Constitution addressing such. Thus, those words not found in the Constitution are the sole property of the States/People and as such they are unalienable by ANY FEDERAL COURT...to include the Supreme Court. See the 10th Article of our States Bill of Rights. Also just how could any legal system profess to be justified by totally ignoring over 200 years of legal precedence that has "clearly" established and defined marriage, as an "individual" right between a man and a woman, not a "group
right"...and deviating from that precedent of legal standard by "opinion" only, as to what some set of Judges declares as their ideology of morality....ignoring the constitutionally mandated right of the States/peoples to make law and set the precedent of declaring their own ideology of morality? BD

Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Traditionally, the right of marriage has been strictly the subject of state law. Recently, however, the Congress enacted the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA); which is a federal law affecting the applicability of the “Full Faith and Credit Clause” under Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution to state marriage laws. The act provides: “No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.” 28 U.S.C. § 1738c. In order for same-sex marriage laws to be given extraterritorial effect, DOMA would have to be repealed by the Congress or declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. See, Andrew Koppelman, Dumb and DOMA: Why the Defense of Marriage Act is Unconstitutional, 83 Iowa L. Rev. 1 (1997); Larry Kramer, Same-Sex Marriage, Conflict of Laws, and the Unconstitutional Public Policy Exception, 106 Yale L.J. 1965 (1997); Mark Strasser, Legally Wed: Same-Sex Marriage and the Constitution (Cornell Univ. Press 1997). Thus far, challenges to the validity of DOMA have not been successful. See, e.g. ; In re Kandu, 315 B.R. 123 (Bankr. W.D.Wash 2004). However, as more states enact laws sanctioning same-sex marriages, there will be more cases which will raise the issue of it as a “fundamental right” that is entitled to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment; but DOMA is the “back door” to getting the Supreme Court to decide the issue.

Yea right, that's why "In God we trust and God favors our establishment" is found upon our Federal Currency, and all the common laws found in Blackstone's theory were in fact incorporated into our legal systems...no? Do you know just what circular reasoning is? You keep declaring that modern SCOTUS somehow wipes the slat of history clean, and it all starts with some judicial opinion in 1947. BD

Not all acts adopted since the founding of our nation may survive constitutional challenge; and some (e.g., so-called “faith-based initiatives”) would have our founding fathers turning in their graves if they knew of them. In this, it is the Christians that have been the revisionists of history in order to propagate their religion, and impose it on everyone else. It is important to remember that your right to worship freely, without government interference, is provided by the First Amendment to the Constitution, and not by God; and it is time that Christians reconcile themselves with this fundamental fact. As Justice Black remarked: “A union of government and religion tends to destroy government and degrade religion.” Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421, 431 (1962). And if this is not enough, then take heed the words of Jesus: “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God’s.” Matthew 22:21 (KJV). Indeed, Christians would do well to follow Christ’s teaching lest they forfeit their faith for worldliness.

In order to have any insight or understanding of this issue, you have to remove the religious aspect, but from the “institution or marriage” and from the constitutional issues surrounding it.

Once you do that, it is a clear 1st and 14th amendment issue, and the answer is simple

BTW, the non secular kooks are going to claim you have the meaning of Matthew 22:21 wrong.
You have it correct, but they will claim you do not

__________________
Argue with some..IGNORE the stupid

Yeah it hurts, you have been fucked by an Elephant !

"Happamia, sanoi kettu pihlajanmarjoista kun ei niihin yltänyt" ("Sour, said the fox about rowan berries, being unable to reach them"

Good point... I forgot about DOMA. Couldn't Griswold v. Connecticut be used as a precedent for launching a 9th Amendment challenge? If couples have a right to privacy within their marriage, then wouldn't the nature of their sexual orientation be none of the State's business?

If marriage is an "individual" right, then shouldn't it be given equally to all people, regardless of their sexual orientation? Also, I agree that the US Constitution doesn't specifically address marriage...but doesn't the 9th Amendment acknowledge that there are rights in existance that are not specifically mentioned within the Constitution?

Firstly, this SCOTUS case did not have any relationship to the Seperation Issue whatsoever. Second, you really need toe ducate yourself on basic law principles. The "Obiter dictum", or what I refered to above as OPINION, is not legally binding at all. Also...

Justice Brewer- “The United States; A Christian Nation.”.... “But in what sense can (the United States) be called a Christian nation? Not in the sense that Christianity is the established religion or that people are compelled in any manner to support it. On the contrary, the Constitution specifically provides that ‘congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.’ Neither is it Christian in the sense that all its citizens are either in face or in name Christians. On the contrary, all religions have free scope within its borders. Numbers of our people profess other religions, and many reject all......Nor is it (the United States) Christian in the sense that a profession of Christianity is a condition of holding office or otherwise engaging in public service, or essential to recognition either politically or socially. In fact, the government as a legal organization is independent of all religions”

As I stated earlier, Brewer was quoting an earlier ruling.


Feel free to show which of "Blackestone's theories of law" make up US Constitutional law, or even our common laws. English Common Law was a creation of the pre-Christian Saxons, and little effected in the few centuries between Christianity taking over the Isle, and the creation of the US.

Also, note the dates of the state constitutions that include religious references in the link That You Provided. One will note that, to the last, they are states that were included into the Union and/or additions made to the state constitutions generations after the last Founder, and when religious fundamentalism well entrenched in the US.

The idea that the US was founded as some "Christian Nation" is a complete fabrication created by the extreme religious right-wingers in this Nation, who began their campaign the moment the Articles of Confederation was ratified. They have not been able, however, to change a few, basic facts contained within our Founding Documents, such as our Constitution among others. Another document that they have not been able to hide is the Treaty of Tripoli, signed into US LAW in 1796 by many of the same men who founded this Nation.

Article 11 - "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;..."
US Treaty with Tripoli, 1796-1797