"If it did" holds no legal water...it does not. As a matter of fact, the Constitution males no mention of gender at any point that comes to mind, it does use the term "person" or "persons" about 22 times.
"Those references will be made in the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment, which will be used as a political football to help elect Republicans."
You all never cease to amaze me.
Most people spend their time in here bitching about how government is the problem and not the solution, and how the Feds are taking powers that do not belong to them, but the moment a problem arises, the first thing you all think of doing is growing the power of the Federal government.
You think that the solution to this issue you have with the definition of marriage is to give the power to define marriage to the Federal government?
Remember the 18th. Amendment?
Give the Feds the power to define marriage, and eventually, they will use that power to do the exact opposite of what you want done.
I believe that the judicially correct decisions are those made with individual "persons" in mind. The decision that ended the recount nightmare in Florida was called Judicial activism by many, and the dissenting opinions pointed out that fact, however, everyone in here praised the activism, and poo-pooed the dissents.
I want the definition to pertain to persons, as the Constitution does twenty two different times, never defining the gender of those persons. -Luis Gonzalez,326
The US Constitution currently has no text at all pertaining to marriage. If it did, it would undoubtedly make reference to gender. -NutCrackerBoy,328
"If it did" holds no legal water...it does not. As a matter of fact, the Constitution males no mention of gender at any point that comes to mind, it does use the term "person" or "persons" about 22 times. -Luis Gonzalez,330
Your response is like Spinal Tap - these go to eleven! The fact that the US Constitution does not mention gender is completely obliterated by the fact that it does not mention marriage. Duh!
Second example:
[Reference to gender] will be made in the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment, which will be used as a political football to help elect Republicans. -NutCrackerBoy,328
You think that the solution to this issue you have with the definition of marriage is to give the power to define marriage to the Federal government? -Luis Gonzalez,330
I was simply sealing my point about references to marriage in Constitutions mentioning gender, and alluding to the popularity of the existing definition - one man, one woman.
I believe that the judicially correct decisions are those made with individual "persons" in mind.
OK, finally something on point! But you need to dig deeper. This is not as simple as gender-neutral language versus gender-specific language in a Constitution. Every rational person including the SJC majority knows that marriage has been strongly associated with actual biological procreation. (Not so say there aren't happily married couples with no children). In order to justify finding the Massachusetts marriage law unconstitutional, the court asserted that there is no rational basis for defining marriage as one man and one woman. The rational basis test is required to be pursued deferentially. If Marshall selectively squeezed the test just to make this decision, she is guilty of gross judicial overstepping. And that is in fact what happened.
The decision that ended the recount nightmare in Florida was called Judicial activism by many, and the dissenting opinions pointed out that fact, however, everyone in here praised the activism, and poo-pooed the dissents.
Tangent alert: I think it would be a waste of time to debate that aspect of Bush v. Gore. But let me say this: the central issue here is that the Massachusetts SJC usurped legislative power. The onus is on you to prove that they did not.