What constitutional right is violated by same sex marriage?

Question

We seperated church and state, wisely, in the 18th century, when our constitution was created. Putting aside any religous bias one might have, what justification by the state is their to ban same sex marriage?

Answer 1

none, which is why they tried to write a constitutional amendment defining marriage. It's funny, it has been awhile since someone tried to rewrite the constitution to TAKE FREEDOMS AWAY from americans.

Answer 2

That doesn't make sense. It's not a matter of constitutional rights at all. There is no mention of marriage in the Constitution - thus it is questionably within the federal jurisdiction, if at all.

But the federal government has exceeded its authority often. Such as requiring the Mormons to give up polygamy in order for Utah to join the Union. Such as Clinton's Defense of Marriage Act.

However, the federal government really should have little say in whether same sex marriages are legal or not, except as it applies to the District of Columbia. Otherwise that is a state issue to decide. But with a caveat.

That caveat is that I consider it an abrogation of a citizen's right if the legalization of same sex marriage is forced down their throat by the state judiciary, based on some ethereal argument that it is somehow a right. That determination is best done by the citizen and his elected representatives, not by judicial fiat.

Do not forget, that although a law may be considered to be "unfair", that does NOT make it unConstitutional or an infringement on anybody's rights.

Answer 3

Same Sex Marriage violates nobody's rights and should be a non-issue. It can hardly be argued that it matters to anybody if somebody else is allowed to marry or not. Some gay couple getting married doesn't affect anybody but themselves.

There are some "rights" that violate the rights of others, for example the "rights" to welfare, health care, and education. The right to get married does not.

But the government shouldn't be involved in marriage to begin with. Marriage should be an issue left to the people themselves to determine without government interference.

Answer 4

I'm old enough to remember a lot of past civil rights issues in the 60s and 70s. This will be the civil rights issue that will eventually have to be dealt with in the future. At some point, because we are a representaive Democracy(our representatives vote our desires) as well as a republic(the individuals rights trump the majority-you can't vote about equal rights)--something will have to change. It's just like MLK times when states in the South said it was a states rights issue to have segregated schools.

Answer 5

Tangerine got it right.

Here's another thought, though. Suppose same sex marriage is legal. Suppose also that a church is asked to perform a same sex ceremony and refuses. The couple sues under discrimination and/or hate crime laws.

While it's a clear violation of church and state to do so, if the state doesn't stay out of the church in a case like this, do we then need to revisit the Church/State issue in the Supreme Court?

Clearly, it shouldn't be a double standard.

Answer 6

What is marriage? Where did it originate from? What is it's purpose? The Government didn't invent it. So why do you care what the government thinks of marriage? Why don't you just invent your own term for the kind of union you want. The word marriage and it's meaning is taken already. You already have a term for the kind of rights you want..."Gay Rights"... instead of the general word "Human Rights" So just come up with another term for the kind of union you want. Then all the beef is squashed and you can go about your own merry little life. How is that for a solution?

Answer 7

Marriage is not a constitutional right, it is a Matter of States rights.
What the Homosexual community is Really after is the Full Faith and Credit clause as applied to marriage, Civil Unions would function in this matter, so for Homosexuals there is no Real Need to define a Homosexual Union as a Marriage. There is no means of production.

Answer 8

People try tagging the reason for not allowing same sex marriage with some political bullshit, but really it all comes down to personal beleifs and morals. They just say the union of marriage by law is meant for a man and a women. There is no constitutional right that is being violated by same sex marriage.

Answer 9

Voters in 11 states approving constitutional amendments codifying marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution.

The legislative activity takes three basic forms:

State constitutional amendments -- The toughest involves enshrining a ban on marriage of same-sex couples in the state constitution and were adopted by 13 states in 2004. In seven states - Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma and Utah - Legislators approved putting constitutional amendments on ballots, while in the six other states - Arkansas, Michigan, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio and Oregon the measures were advanced by conservative, church-backed citizens groups that collected signatures on petitions. All required a statewide vote to pass.

Missouri voters approved a same-sex marriage-ban amendment August 2. On Oct. 5, a Louisiana judge struck down the constitutional ban on same-sex marriage that voters had overwhelmingly approved Sept. 18. Voters in Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon and Utah approved their amendments on Election Day. Similar measures were approved by legislatures in Massachusetts, Tennessee and Wisconsin, but must be approved again in 2005 before going to a statewide vote that year in Wisconsin and in 2006 in Massachusetts and Tennessee.

Three states Alaska, Nebraska and Nevada already had bans against same-sex marriage written into their constitutions. A fifth state, Hawaii, passed an amendment reserving the right to define marriage for the state Legislature, which bans gay marriage.

Marriage statutes -- Sixteen states debated and five of those adopted -- statutory legislation this year that either prohibit same-sex marriage, strengthen pre-existing gay marriage bans and/or prohibit granting marriage-like benefits to same-sex couples in lieu of marriage such as those provided under Vermont's civil unions law. Those that toughened their marriage laws were New Hampshire, Ohio, Oklahoma, Utah and Virginia.

Non-binding resolutions -- At least 20 states considered non-binding resolutions urging Congress to pass a federal constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, and two Alabama and Virginia adopted them. A federal constitutional amendment was proposed in Congress but the Senate in July failed to rally enough support to bring it to a vote. Republican leaders vow to bring it up again this fall.

Answer 10

There a sparkling fact interior the form of the USA of united statesa. that something no longer delegated to the federal government keeps to be below the authority of the states. in view that marriage is a sort of issues no longer given to the federal government, it keeps to be below the administration of the states. maximum human beings of states have exceeded a regulation or modification banning same intercourse marriage. additionally, at an analogous time as the form mentions many rights interior the invoice of Rights and in next Amendments, none of them talk marriage. you have the main appropriate of loose speech, maximum appropriate to maintain and bare hands, maximum appropriate to deliver mutually, and so on. yet no the place does it say you'll be able to desire to maximum appropriate to marry whomever you like. The splendid court docket might could desire to "legislate" a sparkling maximum appropriate in the event that they stated gay marriage is superb. I doubt with the justices we've on the court docket now, they might try this. it could be a bad flow on the area of the gays to push the project to the court docket because it at present stands. they could desire to attend until eventually Obama appoints greater liberal judges, changing the character of the court docket, in the previous they attempt to deliver a gay marriage case to the court docket.

Answer 11

No Constitutional right for it or against. Nothing in he Constitution about marriage period. Marriage by definition is at the individual State level.