Posted on 02/02/2015 8:20:06 AM PST by SeekAndFind
The Supreme Court will soon decide one of the great issues of our time. Is same-sex marriage protected by the U.S. Constitution? Most federal courts have said that it is. But last November, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit said ‘no.’ They said the issue of same-sex marriage belongs to the states. Their decision created a conflict within the federal circuit courts which convinced the Supreme Court that they will have to decide the issue.
When the Supreme Court announced their decision to hear the case, they asked the opposing parties to argue two important questions. First, “Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?” and second “Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?” These are the questions the Supreme Court will decide. A decision is expected in June.
Most federal courts believe that the word “liberty” in the Due Process Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment protects same-sex marriage. The key word is “liberty.” They base their interpretation on recent Supreme Court decisions. For example, in 2003, the Supreme Court struck down a Texas law prohibiting homosexual sex because of the word “liberty.” Many of the so-called rights extended to homosexuals are based on the theory that homosexuality is a “liberty” right protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.
However, there is a serious problem with this claim. The Nineteenth Amendment suggests that the word “liberty” in the Fourteenth Amendment could not possibly refer to same-sex marriage or homosexual sex. In fact, it strongly suggests that the courts have twisted this word to conflict with its historic interpretation.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
If one state allows it, all states allow it.
“If one state allows it, all states allow it.”
Really? That means that sex with 14, 15, 16 year olds is now legal in every state.
The title of this illustrates why this battle is lost.
There is no court case looking at that question.
The question they are deciding on is if same-sex marriage is a federal constitutional right. So far a bunch of lower courts have made it such ordering states to hand out licenses .
How can constitutional rights just come into thin air? Without an amendment?
Like ‘Islamic’, if ya cant even explain what the debate is about then ya probably will lose.
That’s not the same thing, and I think you know it.
Regarding the so-called constitutionality of gay marriage, people don’t seem to understand that the Constitution doesn’t say yes or no to many issues. This is because the main purpose of the Constitution is to clarify the division of federal and state government powers as evidenced by the 10th Amendment.
Regarding gay marriage in the context of the 10th Amendment, since the states have never amended the Constitution to expressly address gay marriage, the Constitution’s silence about it means two things.
Government power to regulate marriage is automatically and uniquely a state power issue.
Gay marriage is not an express, constitutionally protected right. So the states are free to use their 10th Amendment-protected powers to regulate marriage to prohibit constitutionally unprotected gay marriage.
The consequence of inexcusably widespread ignorance of what the Constitution does is that pro-gay activist judges are getting away with wrongly ignoring the 10th Amendment-protected power of the states to prohibit gay marriage.
If you are legally married to that youngster in one state ... that’s true!
Bingo!
later read
The equal protection argument is bogus and even if it were valid the courts have other avenues if it is simply a matter of conferring the same benefits to those in otherwise legal civil unions. They could require the separation of benefits from marriage licensure which in my opinion would be a better path concerning equal protection.
The argument for equal protection though is weak. A person chooses whether they will go into a same sex union or not. Many people who are now in same sex unions have previously been legally married so the idea that they can not choose to be legally married as if they are being actively denied marriage is false. Also many who experiment with same sex lifestyles ultimately do leave them and get legally married. Equal protection is not there to protect someone from their self denial through their own free choices. This idea if confirmed would basically make any conceivable “union” that someone decides to call marriage something that Constitutionally federal and state governments would have to affirm which is crazy.
And after that has been settled the LGBT crowd will bring up the subject of "bisexual marriage". The argument will be, "if gay marriage is permissible because 2 people, regardless of gender, are in love they are allowed to be married, shouldn't a bisexual individual be permitted to marry one of each sex?".
Nope, that’s not how the laws are worded. Age of consent has nothing to do with marriage.
The counter to your argument would also be that everyone in every state could now carry concealed handguns with no permits required, because several states allow that.
And unlike marriage law, the constitution does mention gun rights.
Well then they will rule in favor of polygamy as well,
or group marriage with multiple partners of any sex. You see where your logic takes you?
If that young person is married in one state, then they are in all states, and the age of consent has nothing to do with that marriage,
As far as how guns got in this thread ,,, I have no idea ... LOL ...
If it’s not prohibited or specifically specified ... they probably will. It’s about time to get a Constitutional Amendment spelling out the particulars!
What a marriage is was established a long time ago before the USA was even a thought & all of this legal footwork to change that is doing nothing much more than enriching some in the law profession & confusing some already-confused people even more.
Your warped argument is how guns got in here. You argue that what is legal in one state is legal in every state. That is wrong.
Queer marriage isn’t a civil right. Civil rights cover everyone, marriage of any kind isn’t a civil right.
If you’re married in one state, all the other states respect it.
Just like if you have a CCW license in one state all the other states have to honor it?
States only have to honor a marriage that is legal in that state.
Same sex marriage is not possible. Physically not possible.
I’m just telling you the way it works. Check it out yourself.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.