Tarsonis wrote:The Greater Ohio Valley wrote:The constitution shouldn't be so rigidly applied, it should be appropriately applied to a given situation where it would make reasonable sense. I.e. equal protection in terms of marriage equality, the right for gay people to even exist (Lawrence v. Texas which struck down sodomy laws which were definitely unequally enforced against gay people), etc.
No. A foundation must by definition be rigid. If there's an improper part you amend it.As long as the government has a vested interest in the institution of marriage, particularly when it comes to hospital & Incarceration visitation rights, taxes & debt, power of attorney, legal guardianship of children born in wedlock, funeral & bereavement leave, etc. then the government will continue to maintain the authority to regulate marriage. Unless the United States somehow becomes a theocracy or some other garbage, marriage will not solely be religion's ball to play with, they're gonna have to keep sharing it with the government.
But the state has no authority to define marriage. Everything you described is satisfied via contract law.In that case then marriage regulation could be argued to be a power states have since marriage regulation isn't an enumerated power of the federal government. Though if, as with most powers states have, the regulation falls afoul of the constitution then that's where the federal government steps in as is the case with these court rulings.
Sure but the courts aren't the legislature. So that's a moot point.I believe the court ruled in his favor because of the particularly zealous way his state prosecuted him, not really because his religious freedom and freedom of expression was violated.
Clarence Thomas disagrees.Being a secular country, no religious monument or memorial should be a part of government property, that goes for both crosses and satanic statues, that's the kinda stuff that should remain on the grounds of places of worship.
Except we're not a secular country.
1. If that were true then the language of the constitution would be more specific and detailed.
2. You said “regulate marriage” not “define marriage”. And marriage certificates are another form of contract.
3. Court rulings aren’t legislation.
4. Clarence Thomas seems to disagree with a lot of things.
5. We are a secular country, we don’t have a state religion and we aren’t governed by the clergy.