You and I both know the word isn’t there just like abortion isn’t, but when did that ever stop the 9 members of the USSC from creating rights out of thin air?
Facile and soundly based legal arguments before the Supreme Court are important. This past week Justices were dropping clues, but some lawyers are blind, deaf and dumb.
I haven’t studied Roe v. Wade as closely as I have the Natural born Citizen eligibility requirement, but there are states which have tightened up their laws on abortion. As long as a state hasn’t made it flat-out illegal, existing laws allow controls to be applied to minimize the procedure’s occurrence to those instances where it is available only in a hospital and to women whose lives are in grave danger if the pregnancy isn’t terminated. This would go well towards reducing the murders of babies resulting from abortion on demand.
However marriage, like driving vehicles, is regulated and licensed by the several states - NOT by the Federal government. The U.S.Constitution clearly states that powers not specifically assigned to the Federal government are left to the several states, and that is how I perceived some of the comments made by some Justices at SCOTUS this past week.
My personal feelings on this issue is that states should solely issue civil partnerships (a contract), and not marriage licenses. Marriage should only exist as part of traditional religious practices.
This would result in homosexuals and their supporters having to sue religions about marriage, not the states. Religions have First Amendment protections, as do many other groups who are very, very anti-traditional.
I imagine the result would be farcical, homosexual-based churches and synagogues, but those wouldn’t last long.