Is Marriage a State or Federal Issue?

As the trial for gay marriage gets underway in San Francisco, many are concerned and questioning whether this is the best path to the end goal of legalizing gay marriage. It doesn't matter whether you are for or against gay marriage, taking the issue to the federal court system means that it will ultimately end up before the US Supreme Court and the opinion of 9 people will effect every state in the nation for a very long time. US Supreme Court decisions are not easily overturned, especially as long as the same justices are presiding over the Court. On the other hand, if each State has its own rules and legislation on the issue, there is not much uniformity throughout the US, making it difficult for same-sex couples to move about the Country. 

The issue of the right to marry has been brought up many times through our nation's history; most notably in the US Supreme Court decision of Loving v. Virginia; where a white man and a black woman were forbidden the right to marry in the State of Virginia due to legislation called The Racial Integrity Act. While many will argue that the substance of the case is very different from what we're facing today, many of the legal issues are identical. That issue is Equal Protection. Equal Protection works on two different levels. The passing of the 14th Amendment not only provides that "no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"; but it also extends the protections under the "Bill of Rights" to the States. Meaning that the first 10 Amendments not only apply to the Federal Government, but also apply to the State Governments. 

Therefore, the resolution of many issues that cross state lines end up being determined by the US Supreme Court instead of the State Supreme Courts. It's a remarkable concept that local actions by individual states can be overseen and overruled by a federal entity. On the other hand, when the issue affects the civil rights of Americans differently depending on the state that they currently reside, who else should make that determination but a single universal entity? And even more challenging is the thought that in this global market and advancement of technology, is there ever going to be an issue that is fully resolvable by just the states? As someone who has moved across the Country from PA to CA; I can say that almost all the distinctions between the laws of the two states weighs heavily on my decision to stay here or move somewhere else. So where do we draw the line? 


Of course, I'm being dramatic and there will always be issues that only the states can govern, because they do not affect fundamental constitutional rights. But how we determine which rights are fundamental and which are not will shape much of the debate in this ongoing trial.

And since facts often determine whether legal precedents are followed or dismissed. The plaintiffs must convince the judge that the issues and the facts are similar to Loving v. Virginia, allowing the judge to follow the US Supreme Court precedent. However, if the facts of the two cases are too different then the precedent can be distinguished and dismissed.