Ted and Kid and Sarah...

[Chris0nllyn]

Marriage is a state issue reserved to the states by the 10th amendment. Congress doesn't have any power to pass a law saying states have to grant marriages to gay couples.

However, it became a federal issue when the Supreme Court interpreted the equal protection clause and the substantive due process clause of the 14th amendment to mean that states cannot treat gay couples different than heterosexual couples.

For example, the Equal Protection Clause says "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." The U.S. Supreme Court basically said a state was denying gay couples equal protection of the law afforded to straight couples and hence law denying gay couples the right to marry were unconstitutional.

Right, equal protection of the certain rights and statues of married people.

I always thought the argument during that time was thee wrong one. It focused on state vs. fed, when it should have focused on why the govt. has to grant us permission to get married and why the govt. cares who gets married.

 

[This_person]

No, we don't agree. You've gone so down deep into the weeds that you've presented an impossible position. Government buildings belong to the government, just like my home belongs to me. They do get to make the rules for their own structures. And it's not congress that has made some law forbidding you from carrying in these buildings. Again, if you want to call that a restriction, or limitation on your rights, so be it. I happen to think you're taking this debate to the extreme just to win.

"Well, what about a guy missing all of his fingers, while driving a semi, in the snow, on a Sunday?"

That's the absurdity I see you've taken this.

I am sorry that you feel like I am going to absurdity. I feel like I am asking about reasonable things.

I disagree that the government buildings don't belong to the people. While I certainly agree that government personnel may restrict entry to government buildings based on need, if it is a public building like a courthouse or the Capital or such, there's no way "shall not be infringed" does not apply UNLESS there are reasonable limitations on rights. Which, after all, is my only point.

 

[This_person]

Marriage is a state issue reserved to the states by the 10th amendment. Congress doesn't have any power to pass a law saying states have to grant marriages to gay couples.

However, it became a federal issue when the Supreme Court interpreted the equal protection clause and the substantive due process clause of the 14th amendment to mean that states cannot treat gay couples different than heterosexual couples.

For example, the Equal Protection Clause says "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." The U.S. Supreme Court basically said a state was denying gay couples equal protection of the law afforded to straight couples and hence law denying gay couples the right to marry were unconstitutional.

Notable of course is that not a single state at the time had a sexual orientation requirement for a marriage certificate

 

[This_person]

Right, equal protection of the certain rights and statues of married people.

I always thought the argument during that time was thee wrong one. It focused on state vs. fed, when it should have focused on why the govt. has to grant us permission to get married and why the govt. cares who gets married.

It was not and is not today "permission". You simply sign up by choice to receive the benefits and detriments the certificate allows.