Congress doesn;t regulate marriage, the states do.
States cannot make laws that decree marriage 'illegal' based on what the state legislators think will be beneficial to society. - Same principle, - neither feds nor states have ever been delegated such powers.
The states and Congress can certainly amend the constitution to define marriage as the union of one man and one woma if they so choose.
They could try, but I doubt that such an amendment could be drafted to avoid infringing on our individual right to make valid contracts.
But current jurisprudence considers marriage a "fundamantal right" which is why the government can't force your spouse to testify against you. So while government can regulate marriage any way they please they can not abridge the right to marry.
That right to marry has traditionally been between a man and a woman. I would hope it would stay that way in the preponderance of states. We'll see.
Yep, we could live to long enough to see government doing anything "they please", but I doubt it.
Who could rule a Constitutioal Amendment Un-Constitutional? Would that be anything like how liquor contracts were once prohibited by Constitional Amendment?
We can amend anything we like and there is nothing anyone could do to overturn it except by amendment...
The Court certainly cannot...
You're whacked, of course they can, that is exactly what we elect legislators to do in a constituional republic, make law. You can't marry your sister. You can't marry a two year old. If you don't live in Mass you can't marry somebody of the same sex.
You can argue that there should be no laws at all but to make silly statements like this is simply non productive.
They could try, but I doubt that such an amendment could be drafted to avoid infringing on our individual right to make valid contracts.
Dude, when they amend the constituion that is the law of the land until further amendment. There is no judicial review by the oligarchs. Sorry.
Yep, we could live to long enough to see government doing anything "they please", but I doubt it.
It would seem that anything you doubt has a ailry good chance of happening.
Decree is your word, it doesn't apply in a constitutional republic. Royalty issues decrees, in America we legislate. So your argument here is with yourself. Good luck.
Yep, they can make Constitutional law & 'regulations', - but not decrees.
Like I said, argue with yourself on decrees, it doesn't interest me.
Reasonable regulations. I agree.
Right, so the states can regulate marriage.
Unreasonable reg. -- Why should I care if Bruce wants to 'marry' you? - I don't.
Since Bruce is presumably a male he can not marry another male. Words have meaning. Newspeak doesn't interest me wither. But you've already agreed that states can regulate marriage, if you insist on changing the meaning of words then lobby your legislature to do so. Here, I won't wish you luck.
They could try, but I doubt that such an amendment could be drafted to avoid infringing on our individual right to make valid contracts.
There is no infringement, anybody can make contracts with anybody else. You just can't urinate down my leg and call ir April showers.
Wrong. -- The USSC could issue an opinion that such an Amendment was repugnant to Constitutional principles. -- And any government Official, at any level, could then refuse to enforce such an Amendment, on the grounds that it violated Constitutional principles.
I want you to cite me the relevant section of the constitution supporting your idea. Failing that you should retract the statement. Good luck here, you're gonna need it.
So I guess we agree that while government can regulate marriage, they can not abridge the right to marry?
Certainly and since the definition of marriage since the founding of this country has been the union of one man and one woman, I think you've seen the light.