But hetero couples are not granted the right to get married. Constitutionally, nobody is granted that "right", and since is not federal issue, it falls under 10th amendment.
Did you bother to read # 467 before writing this drivel? I stated that the issue is NOT whether or not marriage is a right in and of itself. I will add that while marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution, the courts, on numerous occasions have in fact ruled that it is a right. That is what is called case law or binding precedent , which carries the same force of law.
14 Supreme Court Cases: Marriage is a Fundamental Right | American Foundation for Equal Rights
Again, the issue is equal protection under the law and due process as provided for in the 14th Amendment. While marriage is generally a state issue, discrimination is most certainly a federal issue and states do not have absolute authority over marriage or anything else when they violate the constitution, as you can see from by above link. By your reasoning, the states should have also been permitted to ban interracial marriage. Are you also of the opinion that Loving v. Virginia was a federal over reach.?
Don't know if I answered this before
TheProgressivePatriot
I would offer these points about marriage being a right:
1. Marriage is a right like Baptism is a right or funerals or communion.
You have the right to exercise your beliefs in any ritualistic form you choose.
So this is a right included under FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION where Govt
can neither establish NOR PROHIBIT free exercise of religion (or expression
by freedom of speech also in the First Amendment).
2. To legislate what is a legal right either requires
a. State legislatures whose duty is to WRITE OR REFORM laws
(this is NOT judicial capacity to create laws, only to INTERPRET)
b. Constitutional Amendments ratified by States as with
establishing VOTING RIGHTS which has a written Amendment
(again this is NOT judicial duty to create laws or rights)
3. What the courts DO have authority to do is STRIKE DOWN
bans or laws that discriminate in unconstitutional ways.
Striking DOWN a ban on gay marriage or on abortion etc.
is NOT THE SAME as "creating a law making it legal."
For example, if courts were to STRIKE DOWN a law BANNING Christianity
that's NOT the same as "making Christianity legal." It was already legal
to practice under FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION. the State is NOT endorsing
Christianity NOR is it "requiring states to implement Christianity"
by removing a ban against it.
So striking down a ban on gay marriage is not requiring States to implement it either.
It's just saying that once States HAVE marriages within state law
then it can't be discriminatory. And this is why I agree with Libertarians
and other Constitutionalists who argue that if people cannot agree on marriage
laws or beliefs, then NONE OF THAT SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN GOVT LAWS:
* if PEOPLE of a state AGREE on "marriage laws" then when those people
authorize the STATE to legislate it, it's not violating the beliefs of any citizens.
* if PEOPLE of a state DISAGREE on marriage laws and beliefs, then legislating
one belief or bias over another would discriminate against people opposed,
such as the case with marriage laws banning same sex marriages which violated
the beliefs of people who were unequally excluded, so in those cases I would
recommend either NEUTRAL or NO laws on marriage, but stick to civil unions
and decide benefits based on financial contracts that people agree to,
instead of regulating social relationships. And if people can't agree on terms of
benefits, then separate THAT from govt as well and manage it privately, just as
church groups decide on programs for their own members, not for the entire public!
