Those Merry Pranksters, hiding all kinds of stuff in the Constitution. Madison? The worst of the lot. Can’t wait until we find the Easter Egg where it’s a right to give Mormons nuggies anytime of the day or night.
The argument is based on the 14th Amendment, so you need to look to those Radical Republicans after the Civil War. They were a laugh riot. The Johnson impeachment? Epic prank.
@4: It’s not in there, either. The 14th Amendment doesn’t tell states WHAT laws to pass, just that they must ensure “due process” and “equal protection” for its citizens OF the laws. Merge that thought with the 10th Amendment and it’s clear “marriage” is not only not covered by the Constitution, it’s wholly a State’s matter.
So, for example, if a State defines marriage (even if at all) between a man and a woman, it can’t deny a marriage based on, say, your skin color, or financial status, or criminal record, etc.
If one tries to argue that “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States…” is the basis of elevating gay marriage to a Constitutional level, keep in mind that that statement applies to those privileges or immunities spelled out in the Constitution itself, i.e., States may not circumvent provisions of the Constitution of The United States.
There are no provisions – nor the word “marriage” itself – in the Constitution that spell out marriage-related privileges or immunities.
It’s in there somewhere, similar to “promote the general Welfare.” Let’s see…
“insure domestic Tranquility” – ? – that could be it, since marriages are often referred to as “domestic partnerships”
“secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity” – ? – That could be it, too, since gay people are so enamored with their Posteriors.
Those Merry Pranksters, hiding all kinds of stuff in the Constitution. Madison? The worst of the lot. Can’t wait until we find the Easter Egg where it’s a right to give Mormons nuggies anytime of the day or night.
It’s in Article 666 hidden amongst the verbiage that grants abortion rights.
The argument is based on the 14th Amendment, so you need to look to those Radical Republicans after the Civil War. They were a laugh riot. The Johnson impeachment? Epic prank.
@4: It’s not in there, either. The 14th Amendment doesn’t tell states WHAT laws to pass, just that they must ensure “due process” and “equal protection” for its citizens OF the laws. Merge that thought with the 10th Amendment and it’s clear “marriage” is not only not covered by the Constitution, it’s wholly a State’s matter.
So, for example, if a State defines marriage (even if at all) between a man and a woman, it can’t deny a marriage based on, say, your skin color, or financial status, or criminal record, etc.
If one tries to argue that “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States…” is the basis of elevating gay marriage to a Constitutional level, keep in mind that that statement applies to those privileges or immunities spelled out in the Constitution itself, i.e., States may not circumvent provisions of the Constitution of The United States.
There are no provisions – nor the word “marriage” itself – in the Constitution that spell out marriage-related privileges or immunities.