The provision permitted about 18,000 couples to tie the not —?until the passing of Prop 8 got passed, thus overruling the provision of the Supreme Court and deeming gay marriage, essentially, unacceptable and illegal once more. Within the U.S, five sovereign American States recognize and exercise same sex marriages. However, we have many other sovereign States as well as jurisdictions which have not acknowledged such marital relationships.
Additionally, some American States have engaged in constitutional amendments, in order to ban same sex marriage; some have even defined marriage, exclusively to imply a marital union of two people; the two must be of differing gender. The Federal Government of the U.S, concurrently, does not recognize pursuant of the same sex marriages to the language referred to as “Defense of Marriage Act” (DOMA).
Following the Defense of Marriage Act’s provisions, the Federal government is therefore barred from acknowledging marriages involving two partners of the same sex. This issue of great significance regarding the Immigration law of the U.S; same gender bi-national partners are not in a position to obtain similar visa benefits on the visas based on families; differing sex bi-national families enjoy such provisions, no matter whether the latter couple is lawfully married within one of the sovereign States of America; which acknowledges same sex marriage. Within the context of all underlying conflicting legalities and policies, Federal Courts of the United
States experience pending cases, which seek to address the contentious issues affiliated to same sex marriages and the provision of the governmental recognition thereof. Additionally, Federal District Courts of Massachusetts and California made a ruling that it was unconstitutional for the Federal’s failure of recognizing same sex marriages which were State sanctioned. However, these decisions are still pending on appeal. The very appeals could most probably find their way to the Supreme Court of the United States. U.S Constitution and Marijuana The longtime question regarding regulation of marijuana in California has been, can there be an effective marijuana regulation, by the Federal Government, without an amendment of the constitution? The assumption has always been that use of tighter taxation measurers would help solve the phenomenon. A story which goes around regarding marijuana in the U.S is that, it is quite legal to be in possession of marijuana, if one can show the necessary stamps which can help prove the payment of the federal tax is committed. Although there is the availability of stamps, accessible from the federal authority – only, the very federals declined to issue the stamps. Arguments are presented, that the process of issuing stamps is executed via the extended powers of the State’s federal government, in an attempt of regulating interstate commerce. The concept dates to the “Pure Food and Drug Act,” published in 1906 by Theodore Roosevelt. The Act effectively decreed a ban in the then conducted interstate commerce involving adulterated and/or impure foods as well as drugs. Another reef would be borrowed from the 1914’s Harrison Narcotics Act that was established in the federal government’s ability to offer exercise taxation. Harrison Narcotics Act emerged the opiates’ initial federal regulation, limiting opiates’ sale to those who owned licensed physicians’