OMG and WTF: Tammy Baldwin Sides With Obama on States Deciding

[WillParkinson]

Tammy Baldwin Sides With Obama on States Deciding

Senate candidate Tammy Baldwin supports President Obama's position that marriage should be left up the states.

"The role of defining marriage has fallen to the states, and it has always been with the states," she said during an interview on MSNBC's Daily Rundown.

"Should it be?" interrupted Chuck Todd. "I know it always has been. Should it be, should we have 50 different laws on marriage?"

"We have since the founding of this country," Baldwin said, "and I don't see anything changing."

http://www.advocate.com/politics/marriage-equality/2012/05/11/tammy-baldwin-sides-obama-states-deciding

[gateley]

1. That's what I thought, too, but some DUers pointed out several examples and reasons

why this doesn't have to remain a States issue.

Tammy needs to visit DU and be educated like I have been!

[stillwaiting]

2. Tragic that she supports something that guarantees 2nd class citizenship for LGBT persons. nt

[WillParkinson]

6. The most tragic part?

She's a lesbian, for cripes sake. She's willing to accept the bitter pill, apparently.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

3. Right now there are six states that permit

same-sex marriage. If the issue were turned over to this Congress to enact federal legislation, you can bet it would be quickly outlawed everywhere absent a presidential veto. Seems to me it's better to have a few states acting as good examples to the others than to have federal legislation taking that right away for all states.

The only way this situation can improve on a national level is for the Supreme Court to find state laws prohibiting same-sex marriage unconstitutional, as they did with respect to interracial marriage in Loving v. Virginia.

[pinto]

7. Yeah, SCOTUS is the route, eventually. As in Loving v. Virginia.

As is, in the meantime, local efforts by supporters on a state level - including a constitutional challenge(s).

[shcrane71]

4. I don't want marriage equality turned into a "state's rights" debate.

Baldwin knows that you've got to keep your eyes on the prize. She's in it for the long haul, and she's a really great Democrat.

[Renew Deal]

5. Isn't she correct?

Marriage has fallen under licensing which I think states handle. Unfortunately we may end up with 50 different marriage laws.

[Swede Atlanta]

10. We have 50 different marriage laws today.....

Some states require you be a resident for at least 6 months before you can apply for a marriage license or request a divorce.

State law has always determined the prohibited degree of consanguinity is with respect to marriage, i.e. how close spouses may be with respect to blood relationship. For example here in Georgia you may marry a first cousin. Many states prohibit this degree of consanguinity.

Remember as per my post below it took a U.S. Supreme Court decision to invalidate laws that prohibited inter-racial marriages under Loving v. Virginia.

I have full confidence the U.S. Supreme Court will eventually issue a similar ruling with respect to same gender marriage. I don't have confidence the current court is the right court to issue that ruling. Taking a case to this court with its current composition could result in a negative ruling. Stare decisis would generally prevent a future court from re-considering the matter within a short period of time absent a significant change in circumstances, etc.

The Court has agreed to hear a case brought by Montana that involves the unlimited influx of anonymous money into their elections. Montana passed a law many years ago to deal with the corruption ushered in when the copper kings around Butte were buying and selling state elections.

It is unusual the court is considering this issue so soon after Citizen's United but there can be various reasons for that. Once can be they see the facts distinguishable in the Montana case from CU and as such they are not going down a path of reconsidering the exact same constitutional question as that raised in CU. On the other hand they could consider the effects of CU as "changed circumstances" that require a re-consideration of the merits of the underlying legal holding in CU.

It will be interesting to watch.

[TheWraith]

8. Probably because she and Obama know nothing will happen at the federal level.

Let's be honest, you are not going to pass a bill through Congress legalizing gay marriage across the country, not for at least 20 years probably. Think about the maneuvering and deal-making needed to pass the repeal of something as well supported as DADT. Then think again of the way in which 41 Senators representing about 32% of the population can block any bill--and the Senate is, by definition, a conservative and change-resistant institution. Even if filibuster reform were passed through it would still be a battle up a mountain to get Congress to do something so radical. The only way it's happening nationally is with a Supreme Court decision.

[Swede Atlanta]

9. Before you jump all over Tammy Baldwin.........

She is absolutely right.....

The federal government's power is limited to enumerated rights, i.e. those specifically articulated in the Constitution. The states have had and, without a Constitutional amendment, will always have that right either as stated in their own state Constitutions or under their general powers.

States have systems to deal with the issuance of marriage licenses, dealing with divorce and all manner of domestic law such as property settlement, child custody, etc. The state court systems have in most cases created courts with specific jurisdiction over family law matters. There is absolutely no reason to disturb that system.

Where the federal government has input over these matters is the extent to which state law, either statutory or constitutional, violates the federal constitution. If the Supreme Court were to rule that DOMA or state constitutional amendments prohibiting marriage equality were unconstitutional on, for example equal protection analysis, then the state laws would be invalid.

So please become educated on the reason family law, including marriage, is a matter of state law jurisdiction and not federal before you criticize Ms. Baldwin.

That said I believe DOMA and state constitutional amendments prohibiting marriage equality is a violation of the equal protection clause of the federal constitution. As such I expect the U.S. Supreme Court will eventually hold these laws and amendments unconstitutional just as it did to rule state sodomy laws violated protections granted not only under many state constitutions but the federal constitution in Lawrence v. Texas.

[William769]

12. When State law infringes on the rights of a minority

The Federal Government has every right to step in and has done so in the past.

Your right you need to become educated.

[Swede Atlanta]

13. Where did you go to law school?

If you are a graduate of a law school they should not be accredited. If you are a member of a state bar that state bar has issues. I am a member of the bar in two states, including the state of New York.

There must be a Constitutional basis for the federal government to do anything. Our federal government is one of enumerated powers. That was the intention of the founding fathers - a central government whose role it was to do "the big things" and leave most local matters to the states and municipalities.

So, from a powers perspective the federal government has no enumerated power or jurisdiction over marriage or other domestic matters.

As I wrote above, this matter will likely be decided when the U.S. Supreme Court determines that state restrictions on same gender marriage violates the rights of those individuals under the U.S. Constitution, specifically in the rights granted to individuals under that document. This will mostly likely be under an equal protection analysis.

Yes, Congress has stepped in but there must be a Constitutional basis for it. The federal government cannot intervene simply because it doesn't like something the state is doing. So either the courts will make a determination under their power of judicial review or Congress and President will do it under specific powers given to them under the relevant sections of the Constitution. The civil rights law that prohibited discrimination in matters of things such as public accommodation (e.g. hotels, bus terminals, etc.) were based under the Commerce Clause, a specific enumerated power given to Congress under the Constitution.

A Commerce Clause basis for federal intervention into state law would be a real stretch. If you look at the other landmark marriage decision involving the federal government it was to strike down laws prohibiting inter-racial marriage. It was the Supreme Court under an equal protection analysis that struck those laws down.

If you are a licensed attorney I would very much like to do a Constitutional Law review with you. You seem to be a bit out of touch.

[William769]

14. I am not a licensed attorney.

Last edited Fri May 11, 2012, 11:32 PM - Edit history (1)

But that means diddly squat. Show me a instance in American History where civil rights have been infringed upon and the Federal Government has not stepped in.

It does not take a Lawyer to have common sense, it just takes well common sense.

[dbackjon]

17. You are the one that seems to be out of touch with the legal history of civil rights

Loving vs Virginia ring a bell?

[Marrah_G]

16. What about when it comes to race?

Do the states have a right to decide those questions also?

[William769]

11. Lets just say I am appalled at some of the comments in this thread.

For the record States give up their rights to govern when they decide not to protect all their citizens. One of the reasons the articles of Confederations was scraped. And if you want to keep talking about States rights lets take a little trip down memory lane back to the 50's & 60's shall we? What happened when the States refused to do the right thing?

[Swede Atlanta]

15. See above.....

Congress acted under Constitutional powers to enact Civil Rights legislation. There is nothing in the Constitution that says the federal or state government cannot engage in discrimination. Discrimination is everywhere in our legal system and perfectly legal.

Just look at the tax code. For example, a person that spends a minimum percentage of their income on medical expenses can deduct those. If you don't spend that much you cannot deduct those expenses. That is discrimination.

But that discrimination cannot rise to the level of impeding the exercise of constitutionally-guaranted individual rights under the Constitution. Equal protection under the laws is the most likely basis for striking down DOMA and the state constitutional amendments against same sex marriage.

Brown v. Board of Education was decided based on the idea that separate but equal is not equal under an equal protection analysis.