That’s a good question. If it is limited, then I think that should be unconstitutional. I’m not sure if any state has a law allowing gay marriage yet. I think in Massachusetts the SC just ruled that it can’t be banned. On a related note homosexuals can get married in all states (just not to the same sex, but that applies to everyone).
Massachusettes has a written law allowing same-sex marriage. It is not unconstitutional and it is not “limited” to homosexuals.
The argument that gay people already have the same right of heterosexual marriage is specious at best. What is at issue is whether people shopuld be allowed to marry the person of their choice (barring obvious rational exceptions like minors, etc).
In any case whether gay marriage bans violate the 14th amendment is a separte issue from whether legalizing it would do so and there is no theoretical stretch by which it would. In order for a law to violate the 14th amendment it has to exclude (with no rational basis) a group of citizens from access to a right or privelege which is available to another group. Same-sex marriage does not give anyone a special right or exclude anyone from marriage.
I don’t know Massachusetts law. I don’t know much about anybody’s laws. In Massachusetts, was the law written to “give” the right, or was it written so as to uphold a right that was seen as already being there? The wording is important. I am curious what it actually says. Massachusetts legalized it under the umbrella of states rights. Since the federal government has not overruled it or struck it down, that seems to mean that it is not unconstitutional in any way. So, apparently it does not violate the 14th or any other amendment. Like was said by DtC, it does not prevent or exclude anyone else from getting married, it does not infringe on their rights and privileges. And, except for Santorum’s own marriage (tee hee), it is not threatening anyone else’s marriage.
Strip away all the rhetoric about defense of family and sanctity of marriage, and you may find that the ones who yell the loudest do so either on religious grounds, prejudice, hate, or a combination of all three. These three things are exactly what should NOT be the basis for making laws against a select group or enforcing nonexistent ones against a select group. At the state level, how many marriage laws were hastily re-written, simply because “we don’t want none o’ them there faggots aroun’ these parts”? If people were logical, they would look at Massachusetts. They would realize no hell mouths opened up. No marriages or families were destroyed. They don’t have “them stinkin’ homos” running rampant in the streets. They may even find that some of “them homos” have been together longer than many straight marriages, which end in divorce. But then, straights have been making a mockery of their wedding vows for years. For better or worse ‘til death do us part"? Yeah right. Marriage in this country was on the rocks way before "them stinkin’ faggots" showed up. Meanwhile, I (for example) have been with the same person for about 23 years. We just can’t get that fancy piece of paper.
I seriously doubt any law would be written in such a way that one has prove they are a homosexual before being allowed to take part in a same sex marriage, so it’s highly unlikely there would be such a limitation. What on Earth would it gain?
That’s the one. Here is a link. The wording throughout is even stronger than the national one, thought the same case could be made for marriage in both.
No it wouldn’t because any couple could the ‘marry’ a person of the same gender. Just like now homosexuals are not barred from marriage, they are free to marry any member of the opposite gender.
Now if it was limited to homosexuals only you might have a issue.
No, it doesn’t. It has a state Supreme Court ruling that preventing it while establishing and recognizing mixed-sex marriages had violated the state constitution’s guarantee of equal protection under the law. No other legislative or judicial action on the matter has officially occurred or seems likely to. Vermont and Connecticut have laws passed by their legislatures establishing “civil unions”, though.
Raging Catfish, slaves and former slaves were only a minority of the population when the 14th was ratified. Were they thereby given *special * rights, or just *equal * rights?
The difference, I think, is that homosexuals can get married and the law applies to all people. The new law won’t be special if it applies to all people.
The Mass. Supreme Court ordered the state legislature to rewrite its marriage laws and gave them a 6 month deadline. Did the legislature refuse to comply with that order? I just assumed they had.
The only thing I saw about marriage on that page was this:
Like I said, the argument that marriage laws don’t discriminate against gay people because they are free to enter hetero marriages is specious at best. Think of it this way…why doesn’t a man have the same right to marry a man as a woman has to marry a man? The laws discriminate based on genitalia.
And regardless of whether A14 would be applicable to same-sex marriage, that’s still a separate issue from your original question as to whether legalizing smae-sex marriage would violate the Amendment. It clearly would not unless only gay people were allowed to get married or unless only gay people were allowed to enter same-sex marriages (an obviously absurd hypothetical).
There was no such order, either, nor does the Court have the power to issue one. Their ruling was *stayed * for 6 months, keeping discrimination in place after ruling it unconstitutional, to give the Lege the *opportunity * to consider the situation and act upon it voluntarily. It did not, and the ruling took effect upon the expiration of that period.
Sure, homosexuals have always had the right to be married. Just not to the persons they love and wish to share their lives with.
It isn’t the part about mariage, specifically, but the parts about about happyness, equality, etc. If they can’t share their lives with the person they wish to live with, and be ensured of hospital visits, etc. then they can’t be happy, or be equal to those who can, now can they?
The first few paragraphs of you-know what: MARSHALL, C.J. Marriage is a vital social institution. The exclusive commitment of two individuals to each other nurtures love and mutual support; it brings stability to our society. For those who choose to marry, and for their children, marriage provides an abundance of legal, financial, and social benefits. In return it imposes weighty legal, financial, and social obligations.** The question before us is whether, consistent with the Massachusetts Constitution, the Commonwealth may deny the protections, benefits, and obligations conferred by civil marriage to two individuals of the same sex who wish to marry.** We conclude that it may not. The Massachusetts Constitution affirms the dignity and equality of all individuals. It forbids the creation of second-class citizens. In reaching our conclusion we have given full deference to the arguments made by the Commonwealth. But it has failed to identify any constitutionally adequate reason for denying civil marriage to same-sex couples.
We are mindful that our decision marks a change in the history of our marriage law. Many people hold deep-seated religious, moral, and ethical convictions that marriage should be limited to the union of one man and one woman, and that homosexual conduct is immoral. Many hold equally strong religious, moral, and ethical convictions that same-sex couples are entitled to be married, and that homosexual persons should be treated no differently than their heterosexual neighbors. Neither view answers the question before us. Our concern is with the Massachusetts Constitution as a charter of governance for every person properly within its reach. “Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code.” Lawrence v. Texas, 123 S. Ct. 2472, 2480 (2003) (Lawrence), quoting Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 850 (1992).
Whether the Commonwealth may use its formidable regulatory authority to bar same-sex couples from civil marriage is a question not previously addressed by a Massachusetts appellate court.[3] It is a question the United States Supreme Court left open as a matter of Federal law in Lawrence, supra at 2484, where it was not an issue. There, the Court affirmed that the core concept of common human dignity protected by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution precludes government intrusion into the deeply personal realms of consensual adult expressions of intimacy and one’s choice of an intimate partner. The Court also reaffirmed the central role that decisions whether to marry or have children bear in shaping one’s identity. Id. at 2481. The Massachusetts Constitution is, if anything, more protective of individual liberty and equality than the Federal Constitution; it may demand broader protection for fundamental rights; and it is less tolerant of government intrusion into the protected spheres of private life.
Barred access to the protections, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage, a person who enters into an intimate, exclusive union with another of the same sex is arbitrarily deprived of membership in one of our community’s most rewarding and cherished institutions.** That exclusion is incompatible with the constitutional principles of respect for individual autonomy and equality under law.**
I’m not sure that that “typically” is actually the case, though I haven’t made a study of it cross-cuturally. I do know that there was no religious marriage in either ancient Egypt or ancient Greece.
I would suspect the most common form is “agreement between families and then some sort of party”, myself.
Nope (at least to Washington’s Attorney General justifying the state law to their Supreme Court). There is no right to marry whomever you want (e.g. a married co-worker, your brother, a 13 year-old w/o parent permission, someone of the same sex, etc.) merely a right to get married. Homosexuals have that right as well thus there is no discrimination.
I can’t say that I buy their overall logic in their courtroom argument (anyone in that office ever hear of the Denying the Antecedent Fallacy), but they do have a point that there is no absolute right to marry the one you love.
It boils down to rational basis. There is no rational basis for banning same-sex marriage.
Maybe I’m looking at this the wrong way, but why should anyone create a separate “gay” law? It’s not this new law that should be reviewed, but the original. Does the traditional law regarding marriage in general deny the rights of a particular group for no reason? It does, I think. Change that. Take the ban on same sex from the list that includes the mentally handicapped, children, animals, etc. Can that be done?
As I said. If you read the second half of my post. It’s not an absolute right but it is a right that is granted if there is no reasonable state interest in denying it…as in if one or more of the parties is not considered competent to enter into a contract, if it would violate an existing contract and so on. That is, it is granted in that case if you are heterosexual. As Diogenes said, there isn’t any rational secular basis anyone’s been able to point to in this case, which makes it, potentially, a question of discrimination. (Surely as much as the miscegination laws were.)
As Washington’s Attorney General is not the final word on the matter I think your “nope” is premature.
Unfortunately, just as I earlier had to correct your summary of the meaning of the Equal Protection Clause, I must step in here again.
Based on your previous arguments in other threads, I do not believe you understand the rational basis test or how to apply it.
But perhaps I am wrong.
Can you explain what your understanding is of the rational basis test and how it is applied?