Where exactly is it federal, or for that matter....the necessity of some gov’t to run the marriage business? I know there’s a historical side where property needs to be noted to avoid conflict when one member of a couple passes on....but I don’t have a lot of faith that the federal government needs to be in the middle of this, and I’m starting to question why even a state needs to do anything beyond preventing property issues.
The decision is a foregone conclusion, a simple formality.
SCOTUS didn’t take this case to overturn the ruling of a large number of State Supreme Courts, they took it to confirm them, and to pre-empt and voter efforts to go around their states decision.
Not even ADDRESSED anywhere in the US Constitution, except in the 10th Amendment.
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Pretty plain to anybody who can read the English language, that the several States may base their interpretation on what is marriage, entirely upon their own existing code or custom.
No.
So-called “homosexual marriage” is counter to every single clause of the stated purposes of the Constitution.
Especially to its crowning purpose: “To secure the Blessings of Liberty to our Posterity.”
Homosexual “unions” cannot even produce Posterity, much less secure it.
Silly bear. Married sex is for mommies and daddies.
Same sex sex is for perverted sh*t eaters.
Better: SCOTUS will decide whether it will side with nature and nature's God or with a perversion of the truth.
The issue was "decided" long ago. SCOTUS gets the chance to affirm or deny the truth.
The question isn’t whether same sex marriage is constitutional but whether it is constitutionally required which of course it most certainly is NOT. The interpretation of the word “liberty” as a guarantee of federal and state licensure of same sex unions is crazy and would also require the licensure of incestuous unions, under age unions, polyamorous unions, with a sky is the limit which was never the intent or till recently the way the word “liberty” was applied. Also technically there is no prohibition of same sex unions nor punishment. The idea that because the government does not explicitly license a union that some how it is banning such union is idiotic. While one can make a case that same sex unions should be licensed the idea that same sex licensure should be guaranteed by the constitution is not just crazy but the product of derangement. Roe V Wade was another such decision that totally stood the Constitution on its head as did Kelo v. City of New London on the matters of property rights, and this would continue such lunacy and leave the whole of the constitution laid bare to even more direct attack by leftists who could leverage this precedent to find even more “rights” in the constitution. Even more troublesome is the idea that because one state licenses biologically correct marriage that some how it must recognize the licensure of any and all variants of pseudo marriage so if one state licenses polygamy then all states must license polygamy and on and on. The elitists in our country are putting us on a path to absolute disunity because this arbitrary defacto amendment by ruling is going to eventually tear this nation apart as did similar judicial oversteps which led to a Civil war.
” In fact, it strongly suggests that the courts have twisted this word to conflict with its historic interpretation.”
Black robed tyrants have twisted everything in the Constitution so badly that it is not recognizable. Shall not be infringed has been twisted to mean the government can do pretty much anything it wants with regards to guns. And the interstate commerce clause has been twisted to mean that the government can now FORCE you to buy something you do not want or cannot afford.
He agrees with “same-sex” relationships. It matters not to him that there are only two ports-of-call in these relationships, those ports being oral and anal.
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.
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.
later read
Same sex marriage is not possible. Physically not possible.
The vaulted Federal employees in black robes won’t decide anything, they will just issue their opinion.
If the definition of marriage was unconstitutional it would not have been so practiced for the entire history of the Constitution.
To take an old law, and declare it unlawful hundreds of years after its impeachment and regular practice by most all of the population is nonthinking short of judicial madness.
An act that should have every so voting member of that court thrown out for either insanity or gross UnConstitutional lawlessness.
The very fact that this marriage is going to the Supreme Court is a sad reflection on a free and civil society. Homosexuals make up only 1.6% of the population, and only about 25% want to be married. Why should a mere 0.4% of the population have the right to dictate to the rest of us what morality and marriage is?
Too many people confuse Law with Culture. A civil society makes laws in order to keep it vibrant and sustainable. All states have laws for helping married couples and to make help women who spend their time raising children and not working. Families get tax benefits and survivor benefits, that are NOT needed for same sex partners, because they will not create offspring that are related to both partners.
Traditional marriage has been around since before Christianity, all societies recognizes the need for it, even Atheists get married.
A civil society has the right to Promote, Permit, or Prohibit anything that would lead to it destruction or loss of viability.
Traditional Marriage of a man and woman is Promoted in order to keep the civil society alive by creating stable families. It Permits civil unions as an act of kindness to those in non-traditional relationships, and to give some rights that seem to be needed. However, the civil society also Prohibits anything that attacks, lessens, or destroys what it Promotes like traditional marriage.
Society need stable nurturing families of a Man and Woman to help them raise children, for without stable families a civil society will not exist.
Is it state, or Federal?
Answer - it's neither.
Actually, the question the ciourt needs to answer is what is the limiting principle for the word liberty in the 14th Amendment. If it means what Kennedy said it means in Lawrence v Texas then there is no limiting principle. If you “love” three women, two men, your daughter and the dog you should be able to marry them all.