Comments on: What in the Constitution could possibly bar gay marriage?

By: TB

TB — Sat, 08 Jun 2013 14:39:25 +0000

Thanks for the flag.

Good idea to leave the note. Not many people check a post’s date.

By: podrock

podrock — Sat, 08 Jun 2013 14:14:46 +0000

This post bumped up by spam, which was removed

By: alcaray

alcaray — Wed, 01 Aug 2012 23:54:58 +0000

Even state laws have to pass the U.S. constitutionality test. n/t

By: bowser

bowser — Wed, 01 Aug 2012 14:41:02 +0000

Marriage isn’t mentioned in the Constitution. Therefore it’s a matter for the States to regulate. If there weren’t an overriding principle, that of discriminination.

For instance, physician assisted suicide isn’t mentioned in the Constitution, and as such is a matter for the States to regulate. Since there is no overriding Constitutional consideration, it’s legal according to the option of the State.

GWBs Ashcroft spent a lot of money simply on religious grounds and got slapped down by the Supreme Court. An example of how hard the Conservatives were pushing us into becoming another fundamental, extremist nation.

By: ER

ER — Wed, 01 Aug 2012 13:36:54 +0000

Having the states regulate marriage may have made sense in the 18th century, when most people never traveled more than a day’s walk from the house they were born in, but in the modern world it makes no sense. Not only do people routinely travel great distances, but marriage is a component of benefits, insurance, taxation, and a host of other issues that have to be administered on a nationwide, even global scale.

I’m all in favor of using constitutionality as a flywheel for government, to damp out the effects of ill-considered sudden changes in policy, and to prevent suddens fads and fashions from getting too strong a grip on the law.

But we have to forget about this nostalgia for colonial mores and customs. We are in the 21st century,
not in a world of slave plantations, property owning male-only suffrage, and electoral selection of presidents. The constitution should expand our freedom into new areas, not preserve old injustices.

How do we tell the difference? Public debate and compromise, the one thing the founders definitely got right.

After all, we didn’t need a constitutional amendment to ban duelling.

By: bowser

bowser — Wed, 01 Aug 2012 05:35:05 +0000

I agree the Constitution doesn’t cover gay marriage, and at first glance it would seem to be a matter for each State.

However, if the Constitution or Supreme Court can rule against discrimination it would seem to be able to rule on various forms of discrimination. Preventing marriage is a form of discrimination.

It would seem that the Constitution, or the Supreme Court, would trump the States attempt to legislate one form of discrimination. It wouldn’t matter if it were schools, buses, employment, or marriage.

By: TB

TB — Wed, 01 Aug 2012 02:38:43 +0000

Agreed.

The Constitution does not, and should not, have anything to do with this issue. The whole point of the document is rigid limits on what the Federal government can permit or forbid.

I oppose attempts to create Constitutional amendments on this issue, and a number of other issues both left and right.

The Supreme Court can address this on one point: the ability of states to individually legislate this issue. The proper answer is yes. Whether such legislation is a good idea is another matter.

By: ER

ER — Wed, 01 Aug 2012 02:09:34 +0000

It is a political talking point because it matters to some people and they generally tend to vote Republican, in blocs. The whole issue is a Republican sop to the evangelical right, and the Democrats love to bring it up just because it embarasses Republicans. After all, there are just as many gay conservatives as there are liberal ones.

Of course, there is one aspect of this nobody seems willing to bring up. Marriages among gays has all sorts of employment, insurance, and tax implications. It’s going to cost somebody money, and they don’t want to pay. Follow the money, Bowz. Follow the money.