Abortion, Gay Marriage, and Statehood

[Agent Foxtrot]

With the abortion and gay marriage issues bringing a divided nation to the brink of a second civil war, I find myself curious as to why Congress doesn't just leave it up to the individual states to decide for themselves. It's really a double-winner: there wouldn't have to be one hard-and-fast, black-and-white ruling for either issue that would result in leaving half the country, give or take your Time/Newsweek/USA Today margin of error, in a state of uproar, and the heat would be taken off the individual members of Congress, not having to worry about who in their constituency they pissed off come reelection time.

Let's say you're from Georgia, and you find yourself with an unwanted pregnancy. Florida's clinics are open for business. Wish to marry your same-sexed life partner, but you live in Virginia? D.C. has a marriage license with your name on it. How could this be any simpler?

Besides, isn't it time we gave some power back to the states? I mean, after all, it's why we have this thing called federalism, right?

Adam

[Alessan]

Originally Posted by Agent Foxtrot

Let's say you're from Georgia, and you find yourself with an unwanted pregnancy. Florida's clinics are open for business. Wish to marry your same-sexed life partner, but you live in Virginia? D.C. has a marriage license with your name on it. How could this be any simpler?

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

If D.C. issues the licence, Virginia has to accept it, and Virginia doesn't want that. It's not like an abortion, which is pretty much a fait accomplait - the validity of a contract can alway be debated. Thus, they take it to te Federal level.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Alessan

If D.C. issues the licence, Virginia has to accept it, and Virginia doesn't want that. It's not like an abortion, which is pretty much a fait accomplait - the validity of a contract can alway be debated. Thus, they take it to te Federal level.

The Supreme Court, in Sun Oil Company v. Wortmanand Pacific Employers Ins. Co. v. Industrial Accident Commission has recognized a "public policy exception" to the clause you cite above. If the legal pronouncements of one state conflict with the public policy of another state, federal courts cannot compel a state to enforce such pronouncements in contravention of its own public policy.

The public policy exception has been applied in cases of marriage, prohibiting recognition of polygamous marriages and marriages of too close consanguinity.

[Northern Piper]

Originally Posted by Agent Foxtrot

Besides, isn't it time we gave some power back to the states? I mean, after all, it's why we have this thing called federalism, right?

Adam

Sure, but the particular form of federalism that has evolved in the United States involves protections of individual rights by the federal constitution, which are binding on the states. The current law dealing with abortion rights is largely a debate between the federal courts' interpretation of individual rights, and the states' desire to pass legislation regulating abortions. The federal Congress has not, as far as I can tell, intervened very much in that debate, other than by things like limiting spending federal money on abortion in some cases.

The Congress can't return this topic to the states because it's not trying to regulate it by federal statutes. There's no doubt that as between the Congress and the individual states, the states have the general jurisdiction to regulate in the area of abortion, provided they respect the rulings of the federal courts on the rights of individuals in this matter.

[John Mace]

Right now, SSM is, in fact, being handled mostly at the state level. DOMA is a federal law, but states are still free to recognize SSM if they choose.

Leaving aside the rightness or wrongness of the proposal in the OP, do you really think the frenzy of debate would be affected? Each state has it's own core vocal opponents and supporters of abortion and SSM.

[elfkin477]

Originally Posted by Agent Foxtrot

With the abortion and gay marriage issues bringing a divided nation to the brink of a second civil war

And what evidence, exactly, leads you to this conclusion?

[Agent Foxtrot]

Originally Posted by elfkin477

And what evidence, exactly, leads you to this conclusion?

History.

Slavery wasn't the sole issue that caused the Civil War -- it would be more proper to say that it was caused by cultural and idealogical differences between the Union and Confederacy. I see our nation dividing the same way. Sure, the issues are very different today, but stances on the issues are increasingly becoming black-or-white, or perhaps more aptly, red-or-blue.

Tell me, what is the difference between the bombing of a hotel in Jerusalem and the bombing of an abortion clinic in Alabama? Or a roadside bombing in Iraq and nails being hammered into logged trees so they splinter under the saw and spray shrapnel? Both are acts of violence, acts of war. Call me crazy, but I see our nation's divide getting bloody, and it won't be that far off.

That, however, is another GD, and I'll be happy to make an OP if you'd like me to.

Adam

[alphaboi867]

Originally Posted by Alessan

If D.C. issues the licence, Virginia has to accept it, and Virginia doesn't want that. It's not like an abortion, which is pretty much a fait accomplait - the validity of a contract can alway be debated. Thus, they take it to te Federal level.

The District of Columbia isn't a state. Congress has absolute power to legislate for it. Conress could get rid of the DC mayor and city council and give the President the power to rule by decree.

Regarding abortion, if you live in Georgia and can afford to go to Florida with it's 24/7 clinics thats fine. But what about the poor woman in Wyoming who's nearest choices are Canada or Oregon? Not everone would have clinics just across the border or be able to afford to travel.

[Agent Foxtrot]

Originally Posted by alphaboi867

Regarding abortion, if you live in Georgia and can afford to go to Florida with it's 24/7 clinics thats fine. But what about the poor woman in Wyoming who's nearest choices are Canada or Oregon? Not everone would have clinics just across the border or be able to afford to travel.

I knew this was going to come up.

How you get to the abortion clinic is your business. Just because you're guaranteed the right to an abortion doesn't mean you're guaranteed the means to obtain an abortion. No state or Federal bureaucrat you call will say, "Oh, you don't have a way of getting to your nearest clinic? We'll be sending a car shortly. Better yet, how about we perform the procedure right in your living room?"

You are guaranteed the right to gamble. You are not guaranteed a plane ticket to Las Vegas to do so. You are guaranteed the right to bear arms. You are not guaranteed a free Glock if you can't afford one. You are guaranteed the right to an abortion. You are not guaranteed transport to the abortion clinic, or a free abortion, or free aftercare. This isn't Europe.

I'm a pro-choice Independent with Democratic leanings, but I still know where we need to draw the line of common sense.

Adam

[Si Amigo]

Originally Posted by Agent Foxtrot

History.

Slavery wasn't the sole issue that caused the Civil War -- it would be more proper to say that it was caused by cultural and idealogical differences between the Union and Confederacy. I see our nation dividing the same way. Sure, the issues are very different today, but stances on the issues are increasingly becoming black-or-white, or perhaps more aptly, red-or-blue.

Tell me, what is the difference between the bombing of a hotel in Jerusalem and the bombing of an abortion clinic in Alabama? Or a roadside bombing in Iraq and nails being hammered into logged trees so they splinter under the saw and spray shrapnel? Both are acts of violence, acts of war. Call me crazy, but I see our nation's divide getting bloody, and it won't be that far off.

That, however, is another GD, and I'll be happy to make an OP if you'd like me to.

Adam

Yes the issues are very different today than it was over slavery. Please don't tie your passion with your cause with slavery, make it stand on it's on merits. While I might agree with some of your statements, it dosen't give your cause it's just due if you muddy it up in other issues. Please, rethink what it is you are after and repost in another thread as you suggested. ;j

[matt_mcl]

Originally Posted by Agent Foxtrot

You are guaranteed the right to an abortion. You are not guaranteed transport to the abortion clinic, or a free abortion, or free aftercare.

Well, of course, if you are in a state in which abortions are illegal, the right to an abortion is not being guaranteed you.

[Agent Foxtrot]

Originally Posted by matt_mcl

Well, of course, if you are in a state in which abortions are illegal, the right to an abortion is not being guaranteed you.

I think everyone here is smart enough to make that connection.

Adam

[Agent Foxtrot]

Originally Posted by Si Amigo

Please don't tie your passion with your cause with slavery...

I'm not exactly sure how I was tying anything with slavery, Si Amigo...

Adam

[panache45]

I get the feeling that the opponents of abortion and SSM won't rest until these options are denied to every single person in every single state.

[Priam]

Federalism only works when people let it work. It only works when the people involved see compromise as effective or even desirable It only works when people wish to be cautious... even, yes, conservative in their options. I fear that there are some issues today, like abortion and gay marriage, that have made radicals out of everyday people. Neither side has the patience to fight state by state for what they believe is the absolute TRUTH!!! In such a world, the quick and "easy" route for your dogmatic truth is the only one to take. Waiting around, dithering, means that UNTOLD PEOPLE MIGHT BE HARMED! I don't speak with disdain, though I do speak with a little self-directed sarcasm, since I am certainly one of those radicals at times.

The other flaw with federalism is that we don't really think of ourselves in terms of the united states of America anymore. We think of ourselves as the United States of America. That difference is absolutely crucial in how we view the framework of the country. At one point in history, not that long ago as history figures things, I would've been a Kentuckian within the bounds of the Union. Now I am an American residing in Kentucky. We don't think of the state first when considering options for most things. The Governor, if we think of him at all, is just some vague figure whose job seems to be scandal generation. We do not allow federalism because we do not consider ourselves a Federation anymore.

[UnwrittenNocturne]

On your hypothetical case regarding abortion.

What happens were a woman travels from her 'abortion-is-illegal' state to onw where she can get one - in defiance of a law (in her original state) that makes it illegal for her to cross state lines to get an abortion?

Badly worded I know, but this is something I believe came up in Ireland.

[Agent Foxtrot]

Originally Posted by UnwrittenNocturne

On your hypothetical case regarding abortion.

What happens were a woman travels from her 'abortion-is-illegal' state to onw where she can get one - in defiance of a law (in her original state) that makes it illegal for her to cross state lines to get an abortion?

Badly worded I know, but this is something I believe came up in Ireland.

This intrigues me. Is there no Federal law that prohibits states from making laws that prevent its citizens from taking part in activities in other states that are illegal in its own state (again, poorly worded)? If there weren't, I'm sure it would be illegal for a Utahn (Utahian? Utan?) citizen to go play Blackjack in Vegas then head outside the city for a hooker.

Can we get some guidance from a lawyer on the board, please?

Adam

[Priam]

Just my WAG, but I believe the Constitution makes inter-state issues a matter for the federal government to regulate. I know that's true for trade and transporting a minor across state lines is a federal crime to my knowledge.

[Walloon]

Originally Posted by panache45

I get the feeling that the opponents of abortion and SSM won't rest until these options are denied to every single person in every single state.

The great majority of those who oppose abortion in general believe that it should be kept legal when the pregnancy threatens the life of the mother, or when it is the result of sexual assault. (Statistics available upon request.)