You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →


[–] James557 2 points 21 points (+23|-2) ago  (edited ago)

What is the constitutional basis to deny same sex marriage? If anything the constitution supports it


[–] Shammyhealz 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

The 10th Amendment says:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The part I'm unsure of is how the Supreme Court plays into this. We'd probably have to read the actual verdict to see how the Supreme Court ruled on it, my guess is that it. My guess is that it has to do with this portion of the 14th amendment:

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.


[–] James557 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago 

The second quote pretty much sums up the point I was trying to make in other comments. Homosexuality isn't against the law, so there's no basis to deny it legally. Because of religious freedoms and separation of church and state, religion isn't a legitimate reason to deny it civilly. And sexuality isn't a legitimate basis to deny an American citizen the same rights afforded to other American citizens.

So the burden is on the states who wished to deny it to provide a legitimate reason, based in law or on the constitution, to afford certain rights and privileges to some American citizens while denying it to others, and with over a decade of this being a mainstream issue/argument, nobody has been able to do that.


[–] HilariouslyViolent 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Yeah, it was Due Process and Equal Protection that won the day. Basically, "marriage" as an institution is a fundamental right (not 'homosexual marriage'), and the states can't arbitrarily discriminate against homosexual versus heterosexual couples for civil marriages.

Scalia's dissent was fucking gold, basically we'd still have race-based marriage discrimination if there were more Scalias.


[–] Patranus 10 points -2 points (+8|-10) ago 

The better question is what Constitutional basis is there to establish homosexual marriage as a right?

There is none.

As such, if marriage is to become a fundamental right, the framers of the constitution enacted a mechanism to establish new fundamental rights via the amendment process.

The entire ruling is ludicrous and if you read the opinions, the words of the Constitution is now essentially meaningless. Though we discovered that yesterday with he Obamacare ruling.


[–] James557 1 points 14 points (+15|-1) ago  (edited ago)

There is a constitutional basis to provide equal legal rights and protections to all citizens, and the whole life, liberty and pursuit of happiness thing. There is also a very strong constitutional basis to prevent any single religious group or view from legislating their personal views. There's also precedence with interracial marriage issues.

Obviously it says nothing specifically about same sex marriage because that wasn't an issue at the time, but that's true of many modern issues.

But again, I have yet to hear anyone provide an argument against same sex marriage that provides any constitutional argument.


[–] reshp1 0 points 11 points (+11|-0) ago 

Then marriage should not exist at all as a government construct. But since it does, the equal protection parts of the Constitution says it needs to be applied equally, this ruling just clarifies that gay couples are equal in the eyes of the law. You can disagree, but there's nothing fundamentally unconstitutional about it.


[–] wienerpunch 1 points 6 points (+7|-1) ago 

How about the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness? Or the fact that the only real reason to be against gay marriage has a basis in religion, which the constitution forbids our government from making laws on the basis of.


[–] Rummel 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Though we discovered that yesterday with he Obamacare ruling.

Or if you want to go back a few days further, this is the same payola administration that is selling out our country via TPP.

You better believe that this marriage ruling is going to overcast news for months and months while we outsource more American lives. Not to mention, the public is going to be in absolute love with SCOTUS for a long time; they will do no wrong.