Posted on 02/02/2015 8:20:06 AM PST by SeekAndFind
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.
The powers referred to in the Tenth Amendment are legitimate powers.
Not illegitimate powers.
Like the federal government, the state governments have no legitimate power to redefine something that God and nature defined from the very beginning.
All they have is the DUTY to protect marriage, since it is the fundamental building block of families, or communities, of society, of civilization, of self-government, and even of the economy. That’s it.
The government needs to be involved in it because there has to be a solid recognition (and legally recorded) when there is this special relationship contract referred to as marriage, because there are a lot of OTHER LAWS on the books that would apply differently when married or not married.
Now ... as to whether marriage is only between a man and a woman ... that was established historically in our country to be yes, because of the Bible saying so. BUT having said that, I don’t think the “Constitution” says so, therefore, there’s a problem there. It’s been that way historically, but it’s not enshrined in our Constitution.
The people of the USA can put forth a Constitutional Amendmemt and make it so, and therefore the U.S. Supreme Court would be bound by the clear language of that amendment ... but apart from that, I don’t think the U.S. Supreme Court is going to find marriage between a man and a woman in the language of the U.S. Constitution.
You and I may know it’s fundamental, as God says so in the Bible ... but I don’t believe it exists in the law, as in the U.S. Constitution.
HOWEVER, the people of this country can put it in the U.S. Constitution by the right they have of inserting a Constitutional Amendment. I would advise that route in order to solve all the wrangling over the issue.
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.
so right.
we are whistling past the graveyard here....
>Homosexual “unions” cannot even produce Posterity, much less secure it.<
.
They can and do legally adopt their posterity.
Yup. They showed their hand back in October, when they let all of those lower court opinions stand.
I wouldn’t be surprised if Roberts joins in with the majority to make it 6-3. Kennedy will claim that states do have the right to regulate marriage, but that they have to comply with his contrived vision of the 14th Amendment.
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.
RE: The question isn’t whether same sex marriage is constitutional but whether it is constitutionally required which of course it most certainly is NOT.
Eventually, the argument will touch the equal-protection clause. That’s what the pro-gay marriage folks are gearing up for.
” 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.
>It’s been that way historically, but it’s not enshrined in our Constitution.<
.
Yes, you’re right. A very serious oversight.
Similar to the fact that a national language has not been established, constitutionally. That’s why we have voter instructions in English, Spanish and Vietnamese languages here in Houston.
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.
"Posterity" obviously ...way back then ..., referred to the ones we leave behind. Team Obama, The SCOTUS, and Liberals everywhere interpret that ...nowadays ... to mean "Leave no Behind."
Your argument seems to be that if the constitution doesn’t prohibit queer marriage, then states are required to allow it. I don’t see it that way at all.
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.