Federal Marriage Amendment (Tabled)

[Deus Naturae]

For the record, I think having such different marriage laws at a regional level opens up a gigantic hive of problems. Polygamy everywhere or polygamy nowhere.

...such as?

[Deus Naturae]

Banning incest is a public health matter. This is easy.  Polygamy has been legalised without any consideration what's over of the legal and tax purposes, and potential for fraud. It is so infernally complicated that we are better off ending recognition of marriage rather than attempting to deal with it. I hope the Senate sees sense and passes this.

Northeastern married individuals can no longer receive benefits as a result of their married status, so that's mute. IIRC in the group marriage bill we required all polygamous married couples seeking legal recognition to sign a prenup so that should settle any legal issues. This was decided after extensive discussion in the Assembly. Regardless, why pass a Constitutional amendment at the Federal level in order to prevent one Region's tax and legal issues?

[Deus Naturae]

A Federal law requiring Regions to make changes to their marriage laws would also be unconstitutional under Article I, Section 6, Clause 7.

[Deus Naturae]

As I said when the northeast was originally considering group marriages I oppose them, but I'm not convinced this is the senate's job.

A Federal law requiring Regions to make changes to their marriage laws would also be unconstitutional under Article I, Section 6, Clause 7.

It almost certainly wouldn't. Or rather, it might, depending on which way the court was feeling on the morning it decided the case.

As I've said before, the constitution is so poorly worded that the senate can make a case for any law it passes as falling under it's powers, and this is no different.

My point has nothing to with the powers of the Senate enumerated in Article I, Section 5. Article I, Section 6, Clause 7 expressly states that the Federal government does NOT have the power to require the Regions to not take a certain action.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Senate has no "point." It has powers, which it may or may not exercise. However, to exercise the power you reference in the manner that this bill does would violate another part of the Constitution.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's a rather poor example considering that murder laws are handled by State governments IRL.

[Deus Naturae]

Just FTR, child porn is not legal in the Northeast. It is legal for children to buy porn, though the fine merchants who sell such material may refuse to sell to them.