Uh oh. Gay marriage in trouble as 6th Circuit rules bans are OK. (regime, solution)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As you and I both know, in the Governments eyes both federal and state. Marriage is a privilege. If it were not a privilege, you would not need to go to the courthouse and file papers to the master to get married, in your church.
There is nothing expressing your "right" to marry, in the Bill of Rights.
If you want to say government is suppose to treat us all equally. That is not what the Constitution says, or the progressive tax system would be unconstitutional.
Even if marriage is a privilege rather than a right, government must justify extending the privilege to certain individuals or groups and not to others.
Nope, there isn't . There are specifications on requirements to vote but nothing in there says you have the right to do it. Maybe next time you should type in the ENTIRE text of the amendment and not cherry pick the half that proves your argument . Who's the idiot now? If I'm wrong then show us where it says all citizens of age 18 and above have the fundamental right to vote .
A right not guaranteed in affirmative terms isn't really a "right" in a fundamental sense.
Man & woman are used in the constitution. Men & Women is never used.
If the Constitution has to say "here is a specific right and we now guarantee that right to every person," there are almost no rights in the Constitution. Forget searching for the word marriage. I see people and person used a lot.
The First Amendment doesn't say "every person has the right to free speech and free exercise of religion." In the Second, the right to "keep and bear arms" isn't defined, but rather shall not be "infringed." In the Fourth, "the right of the people to be secure ... against unreasonable searches and seizures" isn't defined, but instead "shall not be violated." In the Seventh, "the right of (civil) trial by jury" -- whatever that is -- "shall be preserved." And so on.
Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment imposes a penalty upon states that deny or abridge "the right to vote at any election ... to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, ... except for participation in rebellion, or other crime."
The Fifteenth states that "the right of citizens of the United States to vote" can't be abridged by race.
Nineteenth says that the same right can't be abridged by sex.
Twenty-Fourth says that "the right of citizens of the United States to vote" in federal elections can't be blocked by a poll tax.
Twenty-Sixth protects "the right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote."
Defining the action, never defining a group.
If you treat the ballot as less than a fundamental right, you aren't reading that in the Constitution, but projecting it onto the Constitution. The projection comes from a longstanding belief that the vote is not a "right," but a "privilege".
Something granted by the powerful to the deserving.
Of course the Supreme Court has the power and authority to rule on the Constitutionality of state marriage laws:
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
.
Is marriage a right, or a privilege?
That is what is argued, Laws were able to regulate it, by state. Making it a privilege, not a right. There can be no laws or regulation of a right, or one would breech that right.
I agree with you, It is a constitutional law. That wasn't the debate.
The debate is whether it was the federal governments business. I explained why it was not the feds business and you have now confirmed that by agreeing with each other.
It does not violate the US constitution, nor State Constitutions, as the federal government has no power to rule one way or the other, concerning marriage. That is left to the states, receptively
I don't think you actually understand the debate.
In the case of the states that are banning gay marriage, their argument is that it is in the state's interest to do so. Their is an implicit acknowledgement that the ban impinges on individuals' rights in their juridictions. And what has happened in all the federal courts so far, up to the 6th, is that the courts have found that the states' interests are not damaged by individuals exercising their right to marry. When a law is passed that impinges on individual rights, the state is obligated to prove that its interests outweigh the interests of an individual.
The 6th Circuit's argument, that the will of the majority is an interest that outweighs the rights of the majority, is a very weak argument. There is ample precedent for the will of the majority not being found a valid interest of the state. And the dissenting opinion in this decision affirms this, and even goes further, to point out that, in fact, the role of the judiciary is not to go along with the will of the majority, but to protect the rights of individuals.
One of the primary tasks of the Supreme Court is to resolve differences when lower courts disagree on issues where one group's rights are pitted against another group's. This particular court, in its earlier decisions regarding gay marriage, has compromised, by, on a federal level, upholding individuals' rights, but still allowing states to define marriage. They may have been hoping for a state to actually offer a compelling reason for the state to ban gay marriage. However, popular will is not such a compelling reason.
I think the opinion of this court, that popular will should outweigh individuals' rights, will eventually be the downfall of state bans against gay marriage.
A right not guaranteed in affirmative terms isn't really a "right" in a fundamental sense.
Man & woman are used in the constitution. Men & Women is never used.
If the Constitution has to say "here is a specific right and we now guarantee that right to every person," there are almost no rights in the Constitution. Forget searching for the word marriage. I see people and person used a lot.
The First Amendment doesn't say "every person has the right to free speech and free exercise of religion." In the Second, the right to "keep and bear arms" isn't defined, but rather shall not be "infringed." In the Fourth, "the right of the people to be secure ... against unreasonable searches and seizures" isn't defined, but instead "shall not be violated." In the Seventh, "the right of (civil) trial by jury" -- whatever that is -- "shall be preserved." And so on.
Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment imposes a penalty upon states that deny or abridge "the right to vote at any election ... to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, ... except for participation in rebellion, or other crime."
The Fifteenth states that "the right of citizens of the United States to vote" can't be abridged by race.
Nineteenth says that the same right can't be abridged by sex.
Twenty-Fourth says that "the right of citizens of the United States to vote" in federal elections can't be blocked by a poll tax.
Twenty-Sixth protects "the right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote."
Defining the action, never defining a group.
If you treat the ballot as less than a fundamental right, you aren't reading that in the Constitution, but projecting it onto the Constitution. The projection comes from a longstanding belief that the vote is not a "right," but a "privilege".
Something granted by the powerful to the deserving.
There aren't really, there are strong guidelines is all. For the most part they mean what they say but they are allowed interpretations that can deny those rights as well. Obviously this is not the case in all amendments, just the ones spelling out rights people have. Free speech isn't an absolute right, because the courts have determined there can be restrictions on it. The 4th amendment has been interpreted to allow for instances where warrantless searches can happen as well. My point was that the lack of a specific right or restriction in the document does not mean it is not a right. Given that the SC has ruled that marriage is a right, it's hard to continue the argument that because it's not specifically stated in there it's not a right people are entitled to.
That is what is argued, Laws were able to regulate it, by state. Making it a privilege, not a right. There can be no laws or regulation of a right, or one would breech that right.
Is being single a right?
From Loving v. Virginia:
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State.
In the case of the states that are banning gay marriage, their argument is that it is in the state's interest to do so. Their is an implicit acknowledgement that the ban impinges on individuals' rights in their juridictions. And what has happened in all the federal courts so far, up to the 6th, is that the courts have found that the states' interests are not damaged by individuals exercising their right to marry. When a law is passed that impinges on individual rights, the state is obligated to prove that its interests outweigh the interests of an individual.
The 6th Circuit's argument, that the will of the majority is an interest that outweighs the rights of the majority, is a very weak argument. There is ample precedent for the will of the majority not being found a valid interest of the state. And the dissenting opinion in this decision affirms this, and even goes further, to point out that, in fact, the role of the judiciary is not to go along with the will of the majority, but to protect the rights of individuals.
One of the primary tasks of the Supreme Court is to resolve differences when lower courts disagree on issues where one group's rights are pitted against another group's. This particular court, in its earlier decisions regarding gay marriage, has compromised, by, on a federal level, upholding individuals' rights, but still allowing states to define marriage. They may have been hoping for a state to actually offer a compelling reason for the state to ban gay marriage. However, popular will is not such a compelling reason.
I think the opinion of this court, that popular will should outweigh individuals' rights, will eventually be the downfall of state bans against gay marriage.
If that were the case. Would a single person get the same privileges as a married person?
That is what is argued, Laws were able to regulate it, by state. Making it a privilege, not a right. There can be no laws or regulation of a right, or one would breech that right.
Is being single a right?
Then why are there obscenity laws? Why are laws determining when the government doesn't need a warrant to engage in a search? The fact is that there are laws that regulate the rights of citizens.
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State.
Yes, common law marriage doesn't hold the weight, as one that has been granted a contract with the state government.
The fact is that there are laws that regulate the rights of citizens.
In the land of the free, you said it... Not me.
If you regulate my rights, then they are no longer rights, but privileges. Do you get that???
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. There are specifications on requirements to vote but nothing in there says you have the right to do it. Maybe next time you should type in the ENTIRE text of the amendment and not cherry pick the half that proves your argument 
. Who's the idiot now? If I'm wrong then show us where it says all citizens of age 18 and above have the fundamental right to vote 
