Reply With Quote
I would think removing certain rights based strictly on sex goes squarely against the 14th amendment. I'm sure the resident legal scholars can correct me if I'm wrong.
No, because state cons ution cannot trump federal cons ution. The state can claim federal laws violate their 10th amendment rights, but that probably about it.
I would think removing certain rights based strictly on sex goes squarely against the 14th amendment. I'm sure the resident legal scholars can correct me if I'm wrong.
be interesting to see what the SC sez
Exactly. Now you see how a state law can be knocked down on uncons utional grounds.
But your argument is that States, under the 10th Amendment, have the right to enact laws like these. If you concede that this violates the First Amendment (a dubious proposition, but we'll go with it), are you saying that the 10th Amendment gives states the right to enact laws that limit First Amendment rights?
\
It's not removing right. marriage is a tradition that government should have no say in anyway. A gay man still has the right to marry a woman. A lesbian still has the right to marry a man. I fail to see how making a tradition definition of marriage, legally enforceable, as violating equal protection.
Just call it a civil union. Make those legal if people want the same legal rights and responsibilities marriage provides. Still, as a bottom line... I wish government just stopped considering marriage for taxes, etc. Call it a civil union for all couples, and let the churches continue with their marriage ceremonies.
No doubt. I'm pretty sure that's ultimately the intent here. See if they can get a definitive ruling from the SCOTUS.
But they do, and currently it entails a contract between two people that grants very specific rights not granted under other denominations, be it civil-unions, domestic partnership, etc.
Now, if the government is going to call that legal contract "marriage", there's no reason to call it something else strictly on sex grounds, IMO.
I personally don't really care about tradition. Nobody is taking away the religious-marriage tradition anyways.
Traditionally, divorced women shouldn't be allowed to remarry.
x 204824098204820948209482094
California has never been a state full of liberals.
Except, of course, the gay guy and the lesbian.
-zing!-
SCOTUS it will be.
5-4 for sure
Why can't people just admit that marriage is a joke? It's not a right. It's a benefit. When you are married, you get special benefits and tax breaks that single people don't.
That's pretty much the whole point.
Less people are getting married these days and if gays want to get married let them.
Doooode….You cant be serious…Liberals have controlled the state legislature, the courts, the teachers union, for decades…
Yep, lowered my jaw, stepped into that one.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
