Could Congress pass a law...

[destrekor]

With all due respect (which is quite literally none), the 10th Amendment says that states can enact laws which can say anything that they want, as long as they do not contradict the role of the Federal government as laid out in the constitution. The only people who decide whether or not the law fits are the people who vote on them. States are all subject to their own charters before they are subject to any other outside regulation. Point to me in California's constitution where it says that the voters are not allowed to pass laws simply because they affect the minority and not the majority.

That puts opposition to Prop 8 squarely in the 14th Amendment, because (and try to follow this closely) marriage is the ward of the states, not the federal government. The 14th Amendment is the one that deals with protected classes. Sexual orientation is NOT a protected class. Thus, Prop 8 is NOT unconstitutional.

Also, note that I am not against providing gays and lesbians equal rights under the law for the purposes of civil unions. I'm a libertarian. I don't give a shit what they do in the privacy of their own bedroom. If they want to be a couple, fine by me. To imply that the sovereign right of a state to pass laws made by the people of that state to govern the people of that state is unconstitutional rankles me something fierce.

I'm well aware that states' rights are the number one target of the liberal agenda, but that doesn't mean they are any more right than the nutjobs who think gays are by choice. The 10th Amendment is there for a reason, and it's a GOOD THING.

Aside from that, States are ensured a REPUBLICAN government by the Constitution...meaning that the majority does, indeed, dictate the laws by popular vote.

It's actually quite simple.

States cannot pass laws that are unconstitutional. It doesn't matter what the people of the state want, or what the state's constitution says on the matter, no state can operate outside of the Federal law. Now, if the state wants to pass something that cannot, in any way, be considered opposite of what the Federal Government has already written somewhere, it is completely permitted.
No state can take anything away that the Federal government already promised through law. But a state can do anything they want that adds, they just cannot subtract. However, a state cannot do something that adds anything for one group of people, but takes away from another group of people. All people are to have the same exact privileges.

 

[Linflas]

that's unconstitutional?

They all take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution so in theory they shouldn't. Sadly many of them today value toilet paper more than they value the Constitution and count on 51% of the people that vote for them to care more about the cash they bring back to the district more than the Constitution.

 

[drebo]

It's actually quite simple.

States cannot pass laws that are unconstitutional. It doesn't matter what the people of the state want, or what the state's constitution says on the matter, no state can operate outside of the Federal law. Now, if the state wants to pass something that cannot, in any way, be considered opposite of what the Federal Government has already written somewhere, it is completely permitted.
No state can take anything away that the Federal government already promised through law. But a state can do anything they want that adds, they just cannot subtract. However, a state cannot do something that adds anything for one group of people, but takes away from another group of people. All people are to have the same exact privileges.

What you've stated is exactly what I stated.

There is no constitutional provision for marriage at the Federal level. Hence, state regulations on marriage are not subject to the Federal Constitution...the 10th Amendment ensures this.

The only possible opposition to Prop 8 on a Federal basis is the 14th Amendment, which guarantees "equal protection". As yet, the courts have not interpreted sexual orientation to be a protected class under the "equal protection" clause of the 14th Amendment. This means that Prop 8 does NOT violate any part of the Constitution or any of its Amendments.

If the Supreme Court comes back and says that sexual orientation is a protected class, then Prop 8 will be against the 14th Amendment. That decision, however, will come with a serious amount of other issues and unintended consequences ranging in to nearly all other aspects of life. I think that the SCOTUS will side with the 10th Amendment on this one.

The Federal Government doesn't need to legislate what people do in their beds. It's not their jurisdiction.