Homosexual Marriage ban. Constitutional violation?

[The Murray Dynasty]

So this has been on my mind for a very long time, I am a supporter of the homosexual community, and many of my family members, and friends are homosexual in nature. So through legal studies as a kid during my high school and middle school years, I have been researching, and investigating. I wanted to bring it to nation states to some of the better debate groups on the internet.

So my case is a simple stature of the following;

In the bill of rights (the first ten amendments to the constitution), it states there should be freedom of religion, and all that babble, we all know it and mostly understand it. Though, everytime I hear about the homosexual issue come up, I hear politicians, major news groups, and others pick a side towards the bible. Though times are changing rapidly towards the view of homosexual marriage, there is still a bible christianty bias in the United States.

Therefore in my arguement, is it illegal for any state, or even the United States government based on behalf of their constitution by their fore-fathers to make Homosexual Marriage illegal, when Marriage is legalized and administered by the state?

Is it a crime for the government to keep this issue illegal?

My point is that the constution even states a freedom of religion, and etc, etc, etc. So when you base your opinion, and even in many court cases it has been proven that the separation of church and state is prominant, on this issue, why is that still the case? My home state, Maine is putting this issue on the ballot, and with a large elderly community and anti-homosexual community in the state, this bill will likely pass by a short margine, or fail in a tie.

My final question is, can someone gain support and take legal action in a law suit against a state for violation of constitutional rights?

[Samuraikoku]

It has already been done before in interracial marriages. It should, by analogy, take a new precedent for same-sex marriage.

[United German Citizens]

In relation to the states, I say no, it is not illegal for them to ban Homosexual Marriages.

In relation to the Federal Government, I think they should remain on the side lines on the issue of whether to ban or not to ban same-sex marriage. I think this is and should remain something debated and practiced on a state government level.

It has already been done before in interracial marriages. It should, by analogy, take a new precedent for same-sex marriage.

Some people may say that there is a difference between marriage based on skin pigmentation and marriage based on biased sexual preferenced opinions.

[LochNessMontropolis]

"Marriage is legalized and administered by the state"

Marriage is not legalized or administered by the state or federal government. At the time of the writing of the American Constitution, marriage was administered and sanctioned by the church - whatever church you chose - and was a convenant between a man, woman, and God. Government officials, like judges, could perform a civil ceremony, to bind to people, but it did NOT have any religious basis.

Many of those who oppose gay marriage do so because the word "marriage" implies a covenant between the couple and God.

[North California]

Constitionally speaking, homosexual (and any other) marriage should be protected under the 1st Amendment, as the "right to peacefully assemble" could be interpreted to when two people voluntarily agree to "assemble" with each other (which you could call a marriage, if you wish).


From an economic stance, all types of marriages should be legal according to the free market. This is because marriage is a contract, and in a free market, all types of contracts (except ones that infringe on one's liberty, or threaten life or property) would be legal, thus legalizing homosexual marriage in the process.

[United German Citizens]

Many of those who oppose gay marriage do so because the word "marriage" implies a covenant between the couple and God.

This is true, and it is one of the majority views in a Christian influenced nation.

Constitionally speaking, homosexual (and any other) marriage should be protected under the 1st Amendment, as the "right to peacefully assemble" could be interpreted to when two people voluntarily agree to "assemble" with each other (which you could call a marriage, if you wish).

That's a "hail Mary pass" argument at best. As it has been recognized by all Federal and State branches that the 1st Amendment which gives the "right to peacefully assemble" is defined as having the right to announce ones social and political views in the form of a peaceful demonstration or debate.

Now if this Amendment right was not already defined, I can see where you could argue the case for that.

[Desperate Measures]

Many of those who oppose gay marriage do so because the word "marriage" implies a covenant between the couple and God.

This is true, and it is one of the majority views in a Christian influenced nation.

Majority doesn't rule and Christianity doesn't own the word or the concept of marriage.

[The Murray Dynasty]

I fully understand that at the time of the American Constitution that marriage was very different at that time. Though the federal government and the supreme court have taken heavy strides in seperating for any specific church especially in the 60's and 70's when a large group started to support the nation of Islam, and other religious groups were more prominant. I can't actually pick up on the civil cases off the top of my head, but there has been at least one case that I have been educated on where the Supreme Court ruled in mangled worded way that there would be a seperation of church and state to protect the constitution along the guidelines of our freedom of religion.

That is an interesting point, I do think that someone would have a serious case if they went about sueing for violation of the free-market, therefore winning a lawsuit that would, in a way, legalize gay marriage.

[LochNessMontropolis]

That is an interesting point, I do think that someone would have a serious case if they went about sueing for violation of the free-market, therefore winning a lawsuit that would, in a way, legalize gay marriage.[/quote]

But that would still make it a civil union or business partnership and not a "marriage"

[United German Citizens]

This is true, and it is one of the majority views in a Christian influenced nation.

Majority doesn't rule and Christianity doesn't own the word or the concept of marriage.

Majority rule, through a individual vote is a cornerstone in American politics. So technically it does rule.

And Christianity, while does not own the word or the concept of marriage, does own it's own interpretation of marriage which is followed by a majority of Americans.

Both of these points can be easily argued for and against either way.

[Slarvainian]

This is true, and it is one of the majority views in a Christian influenced nation.

Majority doesn't rule and Christianity doesn't own the word or the concept of marriage.

Ya, not really anymore at least. There have been thousands of different rituals similar to that of a wedding over the course of history to celebrate two peoples love for each other. Why can’t we all just agree love is love?

[Ifreann]

I imagine it'll get tossed on Constitutional grounds at some point. Couldn't say what, not being one of them law talkin' guys.

[United German Citizens]

Majority doesn't rule and Christianity doesn't own the word or the concept of marriage.

Ya, not really anymore at least. There have been thousands of different rituals similar to that of a wedding over the course of history to celebrate two peoples love for each other. Why can’t we all just agree love is love?

The debate of Gay Marriage is not over the agreement that all love is love, because if it was that simple, it would have been solved eons ago.

It's more about are all ideas of marriage really marriage.

[The Murray Dynasty]

That is an interesting point, I do think that someone would have a serious case if they went about sueing for violation of the free-market, therefore winning a lawsuit that would, in a way, legalize gay marriage.

But that would still make it a civil union or business partnership and not a "marriage"[/quote]

Its a start though, and I would tell the homosexual community that, and after about a decade states would just give up and vote it in. It all starts with something along those lines before the community just gives up. If the community could actually come to compromise in ten years we would not even discuss the matters of gay marriage, as a civil union would stand as the same, and eventually (with the declining rates of Christianity), would make it incredibly easy to pass the Gay Marriage legalization bill.

[Lunatic Goofballs]

Majority doesn't rule and Christianity doesn't own the word or the concept of marriage.

Majority rule, through a individual vote is a cornerstone in American politics. So technically it does rule.

And Christianity, while does not own the word or the concept of marriage, does own it's own interpretation of marriage which is followed by a majority of Americans.

Both of these points can be easily argued for and against either way.

It takes more than a mere majority to override the Constitution. It takes 2/3rds of Congress and 75% of state legislatures.

[Chinese Africa]

HOMOSEXUAL ACTIVITIES AND MARRIAGE ARE TOTALLY ............. ILLEGAL IN CHINESE AFRICA, OUR LOVELY REPUBLIC

[Neu California]

I suspect gay marriage will become completely legal in the states after the Supreme Court hears the case agains Prop 8 (if it gets that far)

[Samuraikoku]

Some people may say that there is a difference between marriage based on skin pigmentation and marriage based on biased sexual preferenced opinions.

These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial sexual classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial sexual discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race the same or another sex resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

These convictions must be reversed.

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/loving.html

Replace "race" by "sex", and I don't see the principle changing at all.

[Slarvainian]

HOMOSEXUAL ACTIVITIES AND MARRIAGE ARE TOTALLY ............. ILLEGAL IN CHINESE AFRICA, OUR LOVELY REPUBLIC

This is a general forum for real life discussions, not for your NS nation.

[LochNessMontropolis]

Humans can agree on whatever they wish, but IF you support Judeo-Christian beliefs (or Muslim), then you have to accept that the Laws of Moses - Laws of God - do not support homosexual love.

[United German Citizens]

Majority rule, through a individual vote is a cornerstone in American politics. So technically it does rule.

And Christianity, while does not own the word or the concept of marriage, does own it's own interpretation of marriage which is followed by a majority of Americans.

Both of these points can be easily argued for and against either way.

It takes more than a mere majority to override the Constitution. It takes 2/3rds of Congress and 75% of state legislatures.

I know it is more complex than a simple majority vote. But the idea of it is still seen in American society. Just look at the same figures you've quoted and you'll see where I am trying to get at.

[Samuraikoku]

Humans can agree on whatever they wish, but IF you support Judeo-Christian beliefs (or Muslim), then you have to accept that the Laws of Moses - Laws of God - do not support homosexual love.

Good thing they don't matter, since the validity of marriage is granted by the State.

[Acrainia]

I don't think there's anything in the constitution about marriage of any kind. The 9th amendment might apply however.

[United German Citizens]

These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial sexual classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial sexual discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race the same or another sex resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

These convictions must be reversed.

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/loving.html

Replace "race" by "sex", and I don't see the principle changing at all.[/quote]

Noticed I never said You, yourself would see a difference or agree. I just said some would see a major difference.

[LochNessMontropolis]

Good thing they don't matter, since the validity of marriage is granted by the State.

No, dear, the church grants marriage; the state grants civil unions.