Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Gude  Age, as I have said repeatedly, passes constitutional muster because it makes NO distinction based on race, creed, religion, gender or sexual habits.
There is no constitutional issue defining marriage as limited to two adults as limited contracts in terms of number of partners or members are nothing new and, again, as in age, it would apply evenly and without discrimination. |
The Constitution, rightly so, says nothing about marriage at all, and shouldn't. The tenth amendment takes care of that for it. Thus, if a state says that you must be 6' tall to be a cop, you must. If it says you must pass a specific test and medical condition to drive a semi, but not a motorcycle, that's legal. If it says you must meet certain criteria to enter into certain contracts, that's legal. And, Article IV of the Constitution says the rest of the states have to recognize that. However, the states may set up their own criteria to obtain licenses or enter into contracts in their state.
So, you could have a valid driver's license in WI, and it's fine in MD until you move to MD. Then, you have to obtain a MD driver's license, and meet MD's criteria. Similar instances could possibly exist for marriage licenses/certificates. A doctor could be licensed/certified in one state, but not another.
It's not unconstitutional to define the boundaries of ability to enter a contract, as long as those boundaries are uniformly applied. A homosexual may enter into a marriage contract/license at any time so long as they meet the criteria of the contract. Should they choose to NOT marry someone of the opposite sex, they may enter into a civil union (in CA) as their union meets the criteria for that contract.
"Marriage" is denied no one who fits the definition of the union - it denies no one based upon race, creed, religion, gender, or sexual habits. "Civil Unions" are equally not denied to those that meet the requirements of that contract.
Quote:
|
By all means, lose the opportunity to compromise and lose the whole thing in the process.
|
This is exactly what happened in CA. Homosexuals had a civil union ability but demanded it be re-named "marriage", and judges ignored the wishes of the population to find that "right" in their state constitution. So, the people changed their constitution.
Once again, I don't think this should be the first or prominent cards played by conservatives to show they're conservative. This is basically Obama's version of this as well, so it's not even a "conservative" notion by any means. It's just common sense, so if pushed on the issue, I think this should be the response. Priority low - don't make it something worked on hard. But, if others push it, there's no reason to give up principal for political gain/expediency.