Where in the Constitution does it give the government the right to regulate marriage ?

Question

Snvffy: Are you trying to suggest that we try to enforce credence that is NOT in the law books and basing on "property to rights" theory is illegal.

Ted Keneddy: It doesn't. the goverment has steped its boundaries in banning the ownership of guns. But thats a different issue. But it would fall under the same notion that the goverment again is violating citizens rights.

Glory: The Constitution does entail any power that grants states the ability to restrict marriage. To create laws doing so is Unconstitutional in violation of superceding the powers that are granted .

Country: Marriage is not up to decide by anyone then the people getting married. "God" has no say in this. America's laws are based on the adherence of separation of church and state. So how can the state separate something by decision of the church . That would again be violation of principle law.

Answer 1

A number of states still allow and recognize "common law marriage" as a valid means of marrying. Many states allow first cousins to marry. (Rhode Island used to allow Jewish uncles and nieces to marry, as that was formerly common among certain Jews.)

But the general rule is that one may not marry without a license, and that licenses are conditioned on meeting certain norms, including that the marriage not be polygamous, that it not be incestuous and that both partners be of a certain minimum age.

Waivers are possible for "nonage". See the links below.

The Constitution does not need to specify the "rights" -- powers, actually -- of the Government. Many of these, like marriage, are matters of common law. Indeed, until the 14th Amendment, the matter of citizenship (nationality) was a common-law issue.

But not knowing your agenda I can't be more specific. Suffice to say that all countries control and register marriage, but that some, like some US states until relatively recently, also recognize "customary marriage" among indigenous people. See the third link below (nonrecognition in the case of an Englishman married to two native African sisters).

Answer 2

As many times as I have read the Constitution....I have never seen the right of the government to regulate marriage. BUT...the framers (the bunch of old white guys..) did allow for the possible amendment to the Constitution. I refer specifically to Amendment IX (most people will have to look it up of course) allowing for the possibility of rights not enumerated to not be ignored or restricted. Inherently this allows for the states to pass their own laws (as long as they are not specifically restricted by the feds).

This allowance of states rights is the way marriage is currently being regulated in the US (in a round about way it does bring the marriage issue back to the Constitution), as we have seen on the news. But in the US Constitution, absolutely not.

Answer 3

The federal constitution contains no provisions regarding marriage but that does not mean that the individual states can't regulate it by statute. The U.S. constitution would play a part only if the state law violated a right contained in its protections (for example if based on race or other suspect criteria).

Answer 4

I disagree that the laws of the current land has "nothing" to do with God. Whether some people like it or not this nation was established as "one nation under God." In "God We Trust." Although some would like to think that the laws that govern us has nothing to do with HIM... Most of the laws were first implemented in the bible. Stealing, Killing, Divorce, etc. It has worked for years. Hundreds of them. If the "regulation of marriage" is referring to gay marriage, there has to be limitations there. I will not go into that in detail. Everything we do has to have a certain amount of rules and regulations. That is what makes it work. We do not always have to like it, but it is put there for a reason. There should be laws put in place. I think that there should be mandatory testing for STDs before marriage.

Answer 5

10th Amendment for states, Article I Section 8 plus the 14th and 16th Amendments for federal govt.

The federal government is allowed to "spend" for the public welfare, as well as regulate income taxes, which includes providing hundreds of specific federal benefits for the status of marriage. And states have broad powers to enact laws for the population. This includes thousands of specific legal benefits at the state level based on the status of marriage.

And Article IV Full Faith and Credit clause gives Congress the right to establish how legal statuses from one state may be proven in another state. It arguably does nto give Congress the right to allow states to ignore a legal status from another state (c.f. DOMA), though federal courts have not definitively ruled on that issue yet.

Basically, as long as the govt (state or federal) can provide legal benefits, they can make those benefits contingent on following certain legal procedures. What they cannot do is illegal discriminate based on the race or gender of the participants.

Answer 6

I like glory's answer above me.

You need to distinguish between two different levels of "government." Because the Constitution does. There's the federal government on the one hand and there's the state governments on the other hand. State governments do not get their powers from the U.S. Constitution, like the federal gov't does. State governments get their powers from the state constitutions.

Answer 7

It doesn't and it shouldn't. The govt. takes a strong stand because the church says it's not right. They wouldn't want to lose all those votes now would they. Separation of church and state IS in the constitution and I think it's time they enacted it. I say yes to gay marriage and everyone else can start minding their own business.
Signed, hetero and wed

Answer 8

I think every constitution is pre-ambled with recognizing the supreme power of God, so that if God instituted marriage between a man and a woman, we shouldnt try to change the meaning of marriage. As we are not greater in wisdom than the Lord our God.

Answer 9

No where. That is why the party of limited government was seeking a consitutional amendment permitting this federal intrusion.

Answer 10

Provisions on persons and family relations provides for regulations on marriage of persons.