Does the constitution Restrict states from Banning Gay Marriage?

[juliusaugustus]

Ammendment 14 Section 1 of the Constitution seems to restrict states from banning gay marriage
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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.
Banning gay marriage seems to fall under abridging privileges or immunities of US citizens and being as gay marriage law specifically two people of the same sex from participating in marriage that seems to fall under the equal protection clause.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Say you did make it legal everywhere. It would just be a civil/legal arrangement-not "marriage" in the strictest sense (a religious ceremony), unless you are married by a Unitarian Universalist or pagan or something. Sorry if this answer isn't very satisfying. I don't know much more about this. ~shrugs~

 

[Kelly.]

Say you did make it legal everywhere. It would just be a civil/legal arrangement-not "marriage" in the strictest sense (a religious ceremony), unless you are married by a Unitarian Universalist or pagan or something. Sorry if this answer isn't very satisfying. I don't know much more about this. ~shrugs~

likewise, the current system of marriage is not true marriage either, as most people who get a marriage license, are entering into an agreement between themselves, their spouse, their god, and their government.

imo, the issue is that govt gives benefits to those who enter into contract with them, thus giving them a say in who can recieve the benefits. while i wish there were no governmental benefits to being married, we arent there yet. until we get there, i think the govt should treat everyone equal.
or straight people should stop getting marriage certificates.

also, they way you write it makes it seem as though its not a "marriage" unless you are married by [insert official here].
i disagree. i think marriage is between 2 people and their god. the ceremony is for show, its what is in your heart that determines if your married.
just my opinion.

 

[CaptUSA]

Instead of quibbling over whether or not you can get the government's permission, we should probably be asking why we need to acquire their permission at all.

 

[Kelly.]

Instead of quibbling over whether or not you can get the government's permission, we should probably be asking why we need to acquire their permission at all.

you should see some of the looks i get when i tell people i am getting married without a marriage license....

you should also see their face when i ask them why i need to ask government for permission to marry, or when will i ever need to provide a certificate to prove i am married. most people dont get it, and dont want to discuss it.

 

[TheGrinch]

 

[James Madison]

No marriage in government. Period. Everybody wins.

It is a testament to the manipulative powers of the state that marriage, an institution created, ordained, and santified by the Creator God, is no longer complete unless given the blessing of our rulers.

 

[erowe1]

you should see some of the looks i get when i tell people i am getting married without a marriage license....

you should also see their face when i ask them why i need to ask government for permission to marry, or when will i ever need to provide a certificate to prove i am married. most people dont get it, and dont want to discuss it.

Kudos to you for doing that. I hadn't ever thought of it back when I got married, but I wish we didn't get a license.

Hypothetically, I think it could make a difference. If the IRS knew that you weren't legally married they wouldn't let you file jointly. But it's not like you're going to come out and tell them.

 

[erowe1]

Ammendment 14 Section 1 of the Constitution seems to restrict states from banning gay marriage
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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.
Banning gay marriage seems to fall under abridging privileges or immunities of US citizens and being as gay marriage law specifically two people of the same sex from participating in marriage that seems to fall under the equal protection clause.

None of these so-called "gay marriage bans" actually ban anything. Gay people can do everything straight people can in every state. And no state prevents them from doing it or punishes them for it.

 

[TheGrinch]

None of these so-called "gay marriage bans" actually ban anything. Gay people can do everything straight people can in every state. And no state prevents them from doing it or punishes them for it.

They ban them from enjoying the same opportunites as married couples can (though this can also be undesirable, but the point is that one group of citizens is treated differently than others and given choices not afforded to others).

Of course, like most here, I think the government just needs to get out of the marriage business alltogether, but you have to realize that in our current system, exclusion does matter. It's inequitable when you determine what privileges certain groups are or aren't afforded.

ETA: Rand highlights it well here:

""I'm not going to change who I am or what I believe in. I am an old-fashioned traditionalist. I believe in the historical definition of marriage. That being said, I think contracts between adults—I'm not for limiting contracts between adults. In fact, if there are ways to make the tax code more neutral where it doesn't mention the word marriage, then we don't have to redefine what marriage is. We just don't have marriage in the tax code. If health benefits are a problem, why don't we not define them by marriage? Why don't we say, you have another adult who lives in the house, and a kid who lives in the house can be part of family coverage? Then you don't have to redefine, and have people like myself, and people who live in the southeastern part of the country, we don't have to change our definition of what we think marriage is, but we allow contracts to occur so there is more ability to [make] the law neutral."

 

[James Madison]

They ban them from enjoying the same opportunites as married couples can (though this can also be undesirable, but the point is that one group of citizens is treated differently than others and given choices not afforded to others).

But this just further serves to underscore the stupidity of involving government in marriage at all. Why not extend those same benefits to people living with their boy/girlfriend? Or people living with their parents? Why not polygamous couples? More importantly, why, in the first place, should government bestow goodies on people just for being married?

 

[erowe1]

They ban them from enjoying the same opportunites as married couples can

A ban would be something that prevents them from doing something. The fact that the government gives Social Security to old people doesn't mean they ban people from being young.

State recognition of marriage inherently treats those who are married differently than those who are not. This will always be the case no matter what definition of marriage is being used. Including same-sex couples in it would do nothing at all to change this fact.

 

[TheGrinch]

But this just further serves to underscore the stupidity of involving government in marriage at all. Why not extend those same benefits to people living with their boy/girlfriend? Or people living with their parents? Why not polygamous couples? More importantly, why, in the first place, should government bestow goodies on people just for being married?

I knew this was coming, and I addressed it in my next paragraph (read Rand's compromise as well). Like almost all here, I would greatly prefer that, but until we get rid of our current system, the next best thing is to not be discriminatory with the tax system and access to family health benefits.

 

[jmdrake]

Ammendment 14 Section 1 of the Constitution seems to restrict states from banning gay marriage
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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.
Banning gay marriage seems to fall under abridging privileges or immunities of US citizens and being as gay marriage law specifically two people of the same sex from participating in marriage that seems to fall under the equal protection clause.

Ummm....no.

A) No state in the union actually bans gay marriage. Bigamy is banned. Abraham, Jacob, David and Solomon would all face arrest in any state of the U.S. But two men or two women can get married.

B) If your going there, then incest laws are unconstitutional. After all, brothers and sisters are "citizens."

The way forward is to get the federal government out of marriage period. People can contract individually for most, if not all, of the state granted "privileges." The push for gay marriage will really just increase the federal income tax base as gay couples unwittingly sign up for what will for most of them be a marriage tax penalty.

 

[jmdrake]

I knew this was coming, and I addressed it in my next paragraph (read Rand's compromise as well). Like almost all here, I would greatly prefer that, but until we get rid of our current system, the next best thing is to not be discriminatory with the tax system and access to family health benefits.

I take it you haven't actually studied the tax implications of marriage. That said, the "next best thing" is not to make the current system more entrenched by roping more people in into it. And on healthcare, decouple it from employment. Nobody cares who you put on your car insurance. Health insurance should be the same.

 

[TheGrinch]

A ban would be something that prevents them from doing something. The fact that the government gives Social Security to old people doesn't mean they ban people from being young.

State recognition of marriage inherently treats those who are married differently than those who are not. This will always be the case no matter what definition of marriage is being used. Including same-sex couples in it would do nothing at all to change this fact.

If they just treated all voluntary civil union contracts like they do marriages now, then it would most certainly change that fact.

Government's job is to enforce contracts, not define who you choose as a partner, or whether that includes or excludes you from benefits that others are afforded.

 

[jmdrake]

They ban them from enjoying the same opportunites as married couples can (though this can also be undesirable, but the point is that one group of citizens is treated differently than others and given choices not afforded to others).

Of course, like most here, I think the government just needs to get out of the marriage business alltogether, but you have to realize that in our current system, exclusion does matter. It's inequitable when you determine what privileges certain groups are or aren't afforded.

ETA: Rand highlights it well here:

""I'm not going to change who I am or what I believe in. I am an old-fashioned traditionalist. I believe in the historical definition of marriage. That being said, I think contracts between adults—I'm not for limiting contracts between adults. In fact, if there are ways to make the tax code more neutral where it doesn't mention the word marriage, then we don't have to redefine what marriage is. We just don't have marriage in the tax code. If health benefits are a problem, why don't we not define them by marriage? Why don't we say, you have another adult who lives in the house, and a kid who lives in the house can be part of family coverage? Then you don't have to redefine, and have people like myself, and people who live in the southeastern part of the country, we don't have to change our definition of what we think marriage is, but we allow contracts to occur so there is more ability to [make] the law neutral."

The best way to make the tax system neutral on marriage? Scrap it. The second best way? Flat tax. I'll take one or the other for $1,000 Alex.

 

[TheGrinch]

I take it you haven't actually studied the tax implications of marriage.

Not spefically, but I do know in some cases it can be desirable and in some cases burdensome, but my ONLY point is that if one volluntary union qualifies, then all volluntary unions should have that same choice, or else it's discriminatory.

It matters not if it's not always desirable, one can always not have the state sanction their union, but the point is that the current system is exclusive, regardless of it's merits or lack thereof.

 

[erowe1]

If they just treated all voluntary civil union contracts like they do marriages now, then it would most certainly change that fact.

No it wouldn't. There would still be people who don't fit that definition of "married."

 

[TheGrinch]

The best way to make the tax system neutral on marriage? Scrap it. The second best way? Flat tax. I'll take one or the other for $1,000 Alex.

Indded. Any system that doesn't exclude certain citizens would be an improvement from the current one. I don't get why some of you can't understand that I'd greatly prefer to just scrap it.