Maybe the SCOTUS is about to connect some more dots!

[Chuz Life]

Marriage is a state issue

Equal protection under the law is a federal issue

So easy even a bigot can understand it

Exactly!

There in is the constitutional reason for why marriage (a legal construct contract not defined in the constitution) is a State issue and Personhood which is more than only a legal construct (right to life and equal pritection as specified in the Constitution) IS and should be Federally established.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Like concealed carry? Reconcile that first. The right to bear arms is actually in the Constitution, marriage is not.

I don't think that the Constitution says anything about concealed carry , Dude

 

[Chuz Life]

I don't think that the Constitution says anything about concealed carry , Dude

But it does cover the right bear arms.

Doesn't it?

And where it says "shall not be infringed," how would that not include the way that one chooses to bear?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

It also says something about a well regulated militia . Do you think that the 2nd amendment also gives individuals the right to bear nuclear weapons ? What the **** are you trolling your own thread ? The issue, that you started is gay marriage and it is not at all clear to me where you stand on that issue . I think you gave me "a like " on a post in support of marriage equality.

And then there is this from you:

Exactly!

There in is the constitutional reason for why marriage (a legal construct contract not defined in the constitution) is a State issue and Personhood which is more than only a legal construct (right to life and equal pritection as specified in the Constitution) IS and should be Federally established.

Are you saying that the right to life is constitutionally protected but that the right to privacy and autonomy in ones sexual and marital choices is not. ? Spell it out.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Are you saying marriage is a right?

Read the question. I’m asking if rights have to be enumerated in the Constution to be help by the people.

WW

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Are you saying marriage is a right?

Are you saying that marriage is not a right? Tell that to a heterosexual who grew up dreaming of meeting the love of their life and getting married, and never had any reason to think that they would arbitrarily denied the ability do do so. Lets see how that goes over,

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

We can agree that the SCOTUS would be in the wrong to push a religious view.

That said, I think there are other CONSTITUTIONAL reasons to kick it back to the States, just as they did with Roe.

I would like to see them.

Strange that the Supreme Court did not find them, the two times they had the chance.

Strange that the justices did not mention them in their confirmation hearings.

They will be very surprised to hear these reasons you have!

 

[Chuz Life]

It (the Constitution) also says something about a well regulated militia.

True.
Do you know what a well-regulated militia was and how it was defined at the time the Constitution was being drafted and on the heels of the Revolutionary War?

Do you think that the 2nd amendment also gives individuals the right to bear nuclear weapons ?

The right to keep and bear arms is not "given" to the people by the Constitution. The Second Amendment is a recognition of the people's rights and a limit on the power of the government. It's not a gift from the government to the people.

What the **** are you trolling your own thread ?

The only thing I troll for in my threads is facts and consistency.

The issue, that you started is gay marriage and it is not at all clear to me where you stand on that issue .

I thought I made it clear. The SCOTUS, as of now has it ass backwards. Marriage (a legal construct/ contract not defined in the Constitution) is a State issue.

Personhood, (More than only a legal construct is mentioned in the Constitution for "right to life and equal protection,") is a Federal issue.

I think you gave me "a like " on a post in support of marriage equality.

The Horror!

And then there is this from you:

Exactly!

Okay. . .

Are you saying that the right to life is constitutionally protected

Yes. Absolutely.

but that the right to privacy and autonomy in ones sexual and marital choices is not. ? Spell it out.

There are rights involved, sure. However, those are qualified rights. And again, it should be up to the States to define what it will and (by omission) what it will not recognize as a "marriage."

Privacy also has similar limits. Nobody has the right to violate another's rights and shield that violation behind a so called right to "privacy."

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Are you saying marriage is a right?

Of course it is.

 

[Chuz Life]

I would like to see them.

Strange that the Supreme Court did not find them, the two times they had the chance.

Strange that the justices did not mention them in their confirmation hearings.

They will be very surprised to hear these reasons you have!

It's very simple.

"Marriage" is not mentioned in the Constitution.
(Persons/ personhood is, but marriage is not.)

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

"Marriage" is not mentioned in the Constitution.

Sounds like you need to read up on "unenumerated rights".

 

[Chuz Life]

Are you saying marriage is a right?

Of course it is.

Marriage is a "qualified" right.

 

[Couchpotato]

Of course it is.

Based on?

It's 100% not a right. The state is under no obligation to marry anyone gay or straight. The State could abolish marriage as a state institution completely. Secular marriage is nothing more than a package of agreements/contracts that people enter into that they call "marriage". A lawyer could draw up a contract between 2 people which does the same thing. The state has just made it an easy one stop shop.

It's not a right by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[Chuz Life]

Sounds like you need to read up on "unenumerated rights".

And you on "qualified rights."

 

[Couchpotato]

And you on "qualified rights."

Can an individual state decide it is no longer going to issue marriage licenses to anyone?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Marriage is a "qualified" right.

View attachment 1148912

Which makes it a right.

It's currently a constitutionally protected right.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Can an individual state decide it is no longer going to issue marriage licenses to anyone?

Yes, they can, if everyone in the statehouse has plans for a new job.

 

[Couchpotato]

Yes, they can, if everyone in the statehouse has plans for a new job.

That irrelevant. That they can means it's not a right. Just because the electorate would punish the Legislature for doing it doesnt change that. If the US Congress did away with SS the same would happen. SS is certainly not a right.

 

[Couchpotato]

Which makes it a right.

It's currently a constitutionally protected right.

Care to quote the section of the Constitution which guarantees the right to marriage?

 

[Chuz Life]

Can an individual state decide it is no longer going to issue marriage licenses to anyone?

A State could try to do so, certainly. It would probably go straight to the SCOTUS (at least on a fast track) and the State would have to argue that it had the right to do so.

The SCOTUS (if going strictly by their own previous ruling) would likely rule against the State's decision to stop issuing licenses. However, if the State could convince the SCOTUS (as some are trying to do) that it is within the State's rights, under the 10th Amendment. . . The SCOTUS would have to agree and might suggest that a "Constitutional Amendment" would be needed if "marriage" is to be "federalized."