Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: fwdude

Those probably aren’t going anywhere. Why? Technically, the Constitution does not guarantee a ‘right’ be marriage even though in some decisions, dicta in the majority opinion has referred to marriage as ‘right.’ In reality though, in the cases where the court has weighed in on marriage, like Loving & Windsor, those central legal holdings in those decisions were really based on 5A and 14A considerations. IOW, essentially states have the right to regulate marriage, but they don’t have the right to structure those regulations in a way that discriminates on the basis of religion, race or sexual orientation (anymore).

If marriage were a de jure constitutional right, then even cousins would be allowed to marry or siblings or children & parents. But, they aren’t because it’s not really an enumerated ‘right,’ even though for most practical purposes, it’s a de facto right.


13 posted on 04/12/2021 9:29:41 AM PDT by ScubaDiver (Reddit refugee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]


To: ScubaDiver
LOL!! You spoke too soon...

https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3949958/posts

18 posted on 04/12/2021 9:42:23 AM PDT by Sgt_Schultze (When your business model depends on slave labor, you're always going to need more slaves)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies ]

To: ScubaDiver
"Those probably aren’t going anywhere. Why? Technically, the Constitution does not guarantee a ‘right’ be marriage even though in some decisions, dicta in the majority opinion has referred to marriage as ‘right.’ In reality though, in the cases where the court has weighed in on marriage, like Loving & Windsor, those central legal holdings in those decisions were really based on 5A and 14A considerations. IOW, essentially states have the right to regulate marriage, but they don’t have the right to structure those regulations in a way that discriminates on the basis of religion, race or sexual orientation (anymore). If marriage were a de jure constitutional right, then even cousins would be allowed to marry or siblings or children & parents. But, they aren’t because it’s not really an enumerated ‘right,’ even though for most practical purposes, it’s a de facto right."

Thanks for the informed response, but it seems that since in Obergefell v. Hodges the liberal majority of SCOTUS horrendously ruled that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, then it seems to consider homosexual marriage to be a constitutional right, though as with guns ownership, some local regulation is allowed.

52 posted on 04/13/2021 4:46:07 AM PDT by daniel1212 (Turn to the Lord Jesus as a damned+destitute sinner, trust Him to save + be baptized + follow Him!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson