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

To: Sir Francis Dashwood
In reply to that, I say marriage is a public act that requires a license

vs.

I say the federal and state governments have no Constitutional authority to be in the marriage business at all

Do you agree with both these statements?

And for the record, no, I'm not a deadbeat Dad.

75 posted on 04/05/2007 8:09:57 PM PDT by Gumlegs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies ]


To: Gumlegs
Do you agree with both these statements?

It was landmark U.S. Supreme Court precedent Reynolds v. United States in 1878 that made “separation of church and state” a dubiously legitimate point of case law, but more importantly; it confirmed the Constitutionality in statutory regulation of marriage practices.

Article V

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress;...

76 posted on 04/06/2007 2:37:00 AM PDT by Sir Francis Dashwood (LET'S ROLL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | 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