Federal Regulation of Marriage: A Study in Contradictions With laws for and against same-sex marriage becoming so prevalent on the national scene in recent years, there has been much confusion, and on the part of congress, dictation on morals as to what constitutes “marriage” for purposes of federal law. Many state and federal regulations rely on a State definition of marriage for purposes of conferring rights and benefits to citizens. As promulgated, these regulations have a long-standing constitutional and jurisprudential basis. Such regulations were enacted to protect the spouses of accident victims, veterans, employees, and retirees. Congress, however, in enacting a federal definition of marriage in contradiction of these regulations,...The end:
.....81). New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992). Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714 (1877). Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U.S. 393 (1975). Trammel v. United States, 445 U.S. 40 (1980). Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987). Urbina, I. (2010, March 3). Gay marriage is legal in U.S. capital. The New York Times. Retrieved from www.nyt.com. United States Code. Titles 1, 26 & 42. U.S. House. Committee on the Judiciary. Defense of Marriage Act: Report together with Dissenting Views (to accompany H.R. 3396), 104th Cong., 2d sess., 1996, H. Rep. 104-664. United States Constitution. Article IV, Amendments V, X, & XIV. United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995). United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000). United States v. Yazell, 382 U.S. 341 (1966).