Fully support.
The social reactionaryism in this thread is appalling.
I see no reactionaryism. Can we have an intelligent conversation on the marriage debate without name calling please. The federal government is not the best place to be handling this matter.
To take that kind of power away from the government and restore it to the regions.
How does an amendment banning regions from recognizing group marriage restore power to the regions?
It takes away final authority regarding marriage from the federal and gives to the regions.
The only reason we're having this debate is because the federal government delegated to the regions the power to recognize marriage. I'm not sure how you're missing that.
Last I checked the Atlasian Constituition, the senate (federal government) had final jurisdiction on issues of marriage and adoption.
I'm not an expert on Atlasian constitutional law, but Article 1, Section 5, clause 5 of the Third Constitution would seem to grant the Senate the
power to make uniform rules of marriage and adoption, but would not require the Senate to use that power, similarly to how the enumerated powers of the rl U.S. Constitution grant Congress the power to do a number of things, but do not necessarily require the Congress to use all of its powers.
The reason that the Northeast was able to enact the Group Unions Act was because of the recently passed Regional Recognition of Marriages and Civil Unions Act, which granted the Regions the power to enact laws regarding marriages and civil unions, a power which had previously been reserved to the federal government under the Elimination of Civil Marriage Law and Establishment of Civil Unions Act of 2005. This proposed amendment would seem to confiscate this newly granted power from the Regions.
Poll
