Sovereign Oppression wrote:Sociobiology wrote: actually the whole point of the section is that the US does not have the right to deny them marriage, this section is about the fact that the constitution dictates the limited areas that the government can infringe upon rights, the constitution does not define the scope of all the rights held by the people rights.
but really I'm waited for a Hermaphrodite to sue because their rights are infringed by both your and the general interpretation.
And my point is, if they want those right to be legally recognized, they'll have to make a case for it that shows how everyone's right is being denied. Either by displaying A) Everyone's right to marry the person they love is being denied, or B) Everyone's right to marry any person, regardless of sex, race, or other factors, is being denied. Either way, the U.S. does not currently recognize the ability to marry someone of the same sex as a right.
There are two types fo rights. Legal rights, and theoretical rights. Most of the arguments I've seen have been stating that denial of homosexual marriage is in violation of legal rights. It is not. This is what the majority of my posts have been about.
In the case of the !X Amendment, it is a theoretical right, and it must be proven to be real and violated.
which has been done in federal district court, thus overturning any same sex marriage bans in that district.
the fact that you cannot discriminate against sex makes it illegal, but the district court went for the more direct basic right approach.