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.
Congress doesn;t regulate marriage, the states do.
States can "regulate", but they cannot make laws that decree marriage 'illegal' based on what the state legislators think will be beneficial to society. - Neither feds nor states have ever been delegated such prohibitive powers.
You're whacked, of course they can, that is exactly what we elect legislators to do in a constituional republic, make law.
Yep, they can make Constitutional law & 'regulations', - but not decrees.
You can't marry your sister. You can't marry a two year old.
Reasonable regulations. I agree.
If you don't live in Mass you can't marry somebody of the same sex.
Unreasonable reg. -- Why should I care if Bruce wants to 'marry' you? - I don't.
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.
Dude, when they amend the constituion that is the law of the land until further amendment. There is no judicial review --- . Sorry.
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.
-- 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.
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.
So I guess we agree that while government can regulate marriage, they can not abridge the right to marry?