Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

rodeo

Prop 8 unconstitutional, overturned

242 posts in this topic

I still wonder why the us government is involved in a religious institution like marriage to begin with. This is something in my eyes that should fall under the separation of church and state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

brown rush? sounds like something that falls under southcak's jurisdiction.

A very huge, massive brown rush.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

booooooooox2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still wonder why the us government is involved in a religious institution like marriage to begin with. This is something in my eyes that should fall under the separation of church and state.

Believe me, if I ever get married again, the gov will not be involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still wonder why the us government is involved in a religious institution like marriage to begin with. This is something in my eyes that should fall under the separation of church and state.

taxes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the by, it's interesting that its been declared unconstitutional. So far as I can tell, there is no mention of marriage in the California state constitution except the provision in Prop 8 (7.5). Besides that, according to the state constitution, no entity of state government should recognize marriage in any way. Having not read the decision by the judge, how do you declare an elected clause of a state constitution unconstitutional when there is no contradicting clause in said state constitution?

Also, any involvement by the federal government in marriage is a violation of the constitution by way of the tenth ammendment as there is no mention of marriage in the constitution and therefore marriage should remain solely a power of the states.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the by, it's interesting that its been declared unconstitutional. So far as I can tell, there is no mention of marriage in the California state constitution except the provision in Prop 8 (7.5). Besides that, according to the state constitution, no entity of state government should recognize marriage in any way. Having not read the decision by the judge, how do you declare an elected clause of a state constitution unconstitutional when there is no contradicting clause in said state constitution?

Also, any involvement by the federal government in marriage is a violation of the constitution by way of the tenth ammendment as there is no mention of marriage in the constitution and therefore marriage should remain solely a power of the states.

wouldn't outlawing a type of marriage constitute "recognizing" marriage?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the by, it's interesting that its been declared unconstitutional. So far as I can tell, there is no mention of marriage in the California state constitution except the provision in Prop 8 (7.5). Besides that, according to the state constitution, no entity of state government should recognize marriage in any way. Having not read the decision by the judge, how do you declare an elected clause of a state constitution unconstitutional when there is no contradicting clause in said state constitution?

Also, any involvement by the federal government in marriage is a violation of the constitution by way of the tenth ammendment as there is no mention of marriage in the constitution and therefore marriage should remain solely a power of the states.

Since it was a federal judge, I would imagine that he believed that singling out gays saying they can't get married is a violation of either the equal protection/priviledges and immunities clause of the 14th amendment. The 10th amendment in effect gives the power of regulating marriage to the states, but the 14th says it has to be applied equally.

So it comes back to the same question. Is state recognized marriage a right or priviledge? And I still think the easiest way to fix the problem is to end state recognition of marriage and make it a purely religious thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wouldn't outlawing a type of marriage constitute "recognizing" marriage?

No, but it might constitute applying the laws unequally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

States vs Feds has ramped up quite a bit. A slippery slope is usually not recognized until you are rolling down the mountain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, any involvement by the federal government in marriage is a violation of the constitution by way of the tenth ammendment as there is no mention of marriage in the constitution and therefore marriage should remain solely a power of the states.

Healthcare says The 10th amendment is now irrelevant, so it's all fair game. The Government can tell anybody anything on how to run their lives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites