Would there be such a thing as "no fault divorce" if government didn't regulate (not just recognize) marriage?
Well they forgot to tell the government then.
Our opinion on what is and is not constitutional is irrelevant. The only opinions that actually matter are those in the federal court system, and if it goes before SCOTUS, the opinion of the majority of justices. If the majority of justices ruled that you have a constitutional right to kick a Texan, then for all intents and purposes, that would be your constitutional right.
Apparently.?
There are people who don't know that?
No problem. Were their marriages recognized in US? For instance, a Canadian married SS couple moves to US in 1999, would their marriage still be recognized as legal?Please, gay marriage has been legal here since 1997
Thanks for your input
That is a fallacy.
For the Supremes to rule that you have a constitutional right to kick a Texan, that right must be stated in the Constitution. The Supremes cannot just "declare" a right that doesn't exist.
Having said that, it's obvious from various rulings that the Supremes now THINK they have the ability to do that and, since there is no appeal allowed after the Supreme Court rules, we are stuck with it until a later Supreme Court strikes down their own ruling.
The SCOTUS is comprised of humans, and is therefore fallible.Our opinion on what is and is not constitutional is irrelevant. The only opinions that actually matter are those in the federal court system, and if it goes before SCOTUS, the opinion of the majority of justices. If the majority of justices ruled that you have a constitutional right to kick a Texan, then for all intents and purposes, that would be your constitutional right.
This is about a consenting man and a consenting woman who aren't related and are of sound mind and body. Is it a Constitutional right?
This is not about a church wedding or a private wedding. This is about government marriage.
I apologize in advance if I haven't made this clear enough.
You misinterpreted what I said
The people decided to give the government the powers you decry.
Not a single one of the Founders got everything they wanted in the Constitution and most likely every single one had to compromise and accept some phrase or clause that they did not think should be there. What they did finally mostly agree on--a few never agreed to sign the final document--was the original Constitution that everybody felt they could live with and that would accomplish at least most of what they wanted to accomplish and could sell to the folks back home, most especially after the Bill of Rights was added. The document they adopted was brilliantly conceived and allowed the most amazing nation the world to flourish with people who governed themselves.
I believe they would ALL to a man be rolling in their graves at the mere suggestion of any part of the federal government, let alone the Supreme Court, dictating to the people what marriage must be and what the people were required to accept. At the same time they may have agreed or disagreed with whatever decisions the people made on that issue themselves but would have allowed the people to decide.
Which makes one wonder if there is any original or independent thought or conviction in there someplace.The point is that if we are to be a free people, we must be able to organize our societies and live our lives as WE choose and not as an authoritarian central government dictates. And if that means we get it wrong sometimes, well, then so it goes. The Founders were of a strong conviction that a people given liberty to choose and order their own destinies would get it a lot more right than they would get it wrong. They had no such faith in a self-serving government, however.
We were never meant to be direct democracies and the Constitution was meant to protect our individual rights as much as states' rights. And moreso when people realized how much the states would try to restrict the individual rights of the people, even moreso than the federal government that the Founders were worried about doing so. The states are still governments. Many of our states now have more people than the entire US did when it was first founded. There is no way to claim that we are better off with a strong state government restricting rights just because some people want it. Many are quite happy with having state governments limited in what they can do by the Constitution, so long as it is the rights they care about that are being protected for them against state intrusion of those rights.
Yes the timid and needy and dependent are rampant in our modern society. But there are still some of us who understand what self governance means--and it does not mean a pure democracy--but it also does not mean returning to a monarchy or dictatorship or feudal kingdom or other totalitarian government that the Constitution was intended to free us from. Those who think the central government is somehow more noble than the people themselves are willing to sign away all their liberties it seems. Some of us are not ready to do that.
Once again a complete miss on all points.
Well, if you took the Esther soaked rags out from under the floor mat for a few minutes you might be able to follow what I'm saying.
Marriage is not a governmental concern. It is not something it needs to concern itself with at all.
Those who fought for, forged, and ratified the U.S. Constitution did not intend for the federal government to have ANY jurisdiction on how the states would organize their societies or how the people would be required to live their lives. They certainly did not intend that ANY federal court have ANY jurisdiction on the marriage laws or customs in any state. And legal precedent can be just as corrupt as any new laws the courts illegally take upon themselves to establish. The courts were intended to interpret and rule on existing law period.
The sure sign of losing a debate is to open with insult.
We're done here.
Marriage is not a Constitutional right. Equal treatment under the law is.
Who is the Supreme Court forcing to get married? Doh!
This is about a consenting man and a consenting woman who aren't related and are of sound mind and body. Is it a Constitutional right?
This is not about a church wedding or a private wedding. This is about government marriage.
I apologize in advance if I haven't made this clear enough.
The SCOTUS is comprised of humans, and is therefore fallible.
Wrong question. Try again. Show us you understand the topic.
Its not the wrong question.....go back and look at the post. How did this decision "Run Roughshod over citizen's rights"?
The whole point of the Constitution is that certain rights are so fundamental that they can't be put to a popular vote.
Sorry. You lose.
You see? You haven't even thought about it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?