Federal Definition of Mariage?

[jwoodie]

I am wondering where the slippery slope of federal judicial activism will lead us regarding state requirements for marriage. Currently, states differ as to age, diseases, mental capacity, consent, incest, ceremony, witnesses, waiting period, consummation, etc. So far, the only areas in which the federal government has become involved are bigamy and same sex marriage. If marriage is a Constitutional right, do not these other requirements constitute impermissible discrimination? Why is gay marriage the only distinction afforded a higher level of federal protection?

Please spare me recitation of idiotic court rulings made by the political hacks and partisan zealots who are awarded with federal judgeships. I am more interested in where you think this will ultimately lead.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Federal definition of marriage?

There shouldn't be one.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I am wondering where the slippery slope of federal judicial activism will lead us regarding state requirements for marriage. Currently, states differ as to age, diseases, mental capacity, consent, incest, ceremony, witnesses, waiting period, consummation, etc. So far, the only areas in which the federal government has become involved are bigamy and same sex marriage. If marriage is a Constitutional right, do not these other requirements constitute impermissible discrimination? Why is gay marriage the only distinction afforded a higher level of federal protection?

Please spare me recitation of idiotic court rulings made by the political hacks and partisan zealots who are awarded with federal judgeships. I am more interested in where you think this will ultimately lead.

Your contempt for the Constitution and its case law is noted.

Otherwise, you don't understand the issue.

However a state might configure its marriage (contract) law, it must allow those eligible to enter into those contracts access to the law, including same-sex couples.

The issue therefore has nothing to do with the provisions of a given state's marriage law, it has to do with the states' unwarranted and irrational attempt to exclude a class of persons access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in for no other reason than who they are. “This [the states] cannot do. A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws.” Romer v. Evans (1996).

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Why are RWs always so against freedom and equality? Government should not be involved in defining marriage. Not local or federal. The last thing we need is bigger, more invasive government.

If its between consenting adults and harms no one, MYOB.

 

[jwoodie]

I am wondering where the slippery slope of federal judicial activism will lead us regarding state requirements for marriage. Currently, states differ as to age, diseases, mental capacity, consent, incest, ceremony, witnesses, waiting period, consummation, etc. So far, the only areas in which the federal government has become involved are bigamy and same sex marriage. If marriage is a Constitutional right, do not these other requirements constitute impermissible discrimination? Why is gay marriage the only distinction afforded a higher level of federal protection?

Please spare me recitation of idiotic court rulings made by the political hacks and partisan zealots who are awarded with federal judgeships. I am more interested in where you think this will ultimately lead.

Your contempt for the Constitution and its case law is noted.

Otherwise, you don't understand the issue.

However a state might configure its marriage (contract) law, it must allow those eligible to enter into those contracts access to the law, including same-sex couples.

The issue therefore has nothing to do with the provisions of a given state's marriage law, it has to do with the states' unwarranted and irrational attempt to exclude a class of persons access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in for no other reason than who they are. “This [the states] cannot do. A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws.” Romer v. Evans (1996).

YOUR contempt for the Constitution is duly noted.

Otherwise, you don't understand my post.

You acknowledge that a state can "configure" its marriage law, but not determine who is "eligible" under that law. Why would you not apply this proscription to other eligibility criteria such as age, mental capacity and blood relationship?

Reread my post and try again.

 

[Syriusly]

Why is gay marriage the only distinction afforded a higher level of federal protection?d.

All marriage is afforded constitutional protections.

Which is why multiple cases regarding marriage have reached the Supreme Court.

Same gender marriage is merely the most recent marriage issue to considered for its constitutional implications.

So your question is just factually incorrect.

 

[jwoodie]

Why is gay marriage the only distinction afforded a higher level of federal protection?d.

All marriage is afforded constitutional protections.

Which is why multiple cases regarding marriage have reached the Supreme Court.federal protection?

Same gender marriage is merely the most recent marriage issue to considered for its constitutional implications.

So your question is just factually incorrect.

Why not just answer the question? Other than gay marriage, what other distinction has been afforded a higher level of federal protection?

 

[Syriusly]

Why is gay marriage the only distinction afforded a higher level of federal protection?d.

All marriage is afforded constitutional protections.

Which is why multiple cases regarding marriage have reached the Supreme Court.federal protection?

Same gender marriage is merely the most recent marriage issue to considered for its constitutional implications.

So your question is just factually incorrect.

Why not just answer the question? Other than gay marriage, what other distinction has been afforded a higher level of federal protection?

Because it is as dishonest as asking why only blacks have ever been discriminated against.

There have been multiple instances of couples suing for their constitutional right to marry- and for the Supreme Court ruling in their favor- off the top of my head this includes:
Loving V. Virginia- overturned state law forbidding mixed race marriage
Wisconsin law which prevented men who owed child support from marrying.
Another state law which prevented inmates from marrying.

All instances of the Federal Courts being used to enforce the Constitution when it comes to overturning State marriage laws.

Same Gender marriage is just another example of such a law suit.

 

[DGS49]

Rights that apply to "persons" do not necessarily apply to "couples" or other groups of persons, except for the "right of people peacably to assemble" as mentioned in the First Amendment.

The Ninth Amendment acknowledges that although certain rights are set forth in the Bill of Rights, there are other rights, not specifically mentioned, which also exist. The right to enter into contracts, to move about the country, to own property, and so on, are often mentioned as typical of the non-mentioned rights that might be referred to in the Ninth Amendment. No rational person has ever suggested that the right to marry someone of the same gender is one of the non-mentioned rights of the Ninth Amendment.

Viewed correctly, marriage is a package of legal rights, obligations, and prerogatives promulgated by the States (and the District of Columbia) to meet the respective states' domestic objectives, and granted to those who qualfy and jump through the necessary hoops to be married in that state. If you are too young, if you lack legal capacity, or if your relationship with the other party is not permitted, you simply cannot marry them.

It is analogous to obtaining a driver's license. You do NOT have a "constitutional" right to drive a car anywhere in any state. You have a constitutional right to OWN a car and to travel anywhere you like, but to DRIVE the car (without fear of being prosecuted for a crime or summary offense), you MUST jump through the appropriate hoops.

Promulgating laws regulating marriage is one of the rights/powers that is, "...reserved to the states, respectively..." under the Tenth Amendment.

Each state, and the federal government, must give, "full faith and credit" to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every (other) state. Thus, if a couple is married in one state and moves to another state, the second state cannot refuse to recognize that marriage, even if it could not have been legally entered into in the second state.

The USSC has reaffirmed this principle with respect to the so-called Defense of Marriage Act.

The Supreme Court has not ever declared that "couples" of the same gender have a constitutional right to "marry" each other. The very idea is preposterous.

U.S. Federal District Court and Circuit Court judges have, however, occasionally made such declarations (i.e., been guilty of eggregious "judicial activism"), expressing their personal opinions on what they think the Constitution ought to have said, but doesn't, and knowing that ultimately the USSC will have to try to find a "right" to marry someone of the same gender. Or not.

For anyone hoping that the USSC will one day defend the "sanctity of marriage," you need to get over it, take a pill, or something like that. The battle is not over but it is lost. Within a few short years "gay marriage" will be legally performed in every state. Utah will CALL gay marriage and RAISE polygamy and incest.

And really, who gives a shit? If your church doesn't recognize gay "marriage" that should be good enough for anyone. My church doesn't recognize marriages performed by the state, or divorces either. So there.

 

[konradv]

Federal definition of marriage?
There shouldn't be one.

So, rights ARE a gift from the state? Having differing laws from state to state with regard to civil rights goes against the very principle conservatives say they hold so dearly, i.e.that God gives rights, NOT the state.

 

[jwoodie]

Federal definition of marriage?
There shouldn't be one.

So, rights ARE a gift from the state? Having differing laws from state to state with regard to civil rights goes against the very principle conservatives say they hold so dearly, i.e.that God gives rights, NOT the state.

So God gave you the right to drive a car?