J
JimG
Guest
The Constitution says nothing about marriage. Marriage law is made by the States.
- Status
C
casey_cates
Guest
Yes exactly my point that it is not in explicitly in the Constitution.
The reason it’s not mentioned in the Constitution is because it is governed under State Law not Federal law. That’s why gay marriage is allowed in California but not Texas.
However, when ruling on marriage issues previously the Supreme Court always understood marriage to mean between one man and one woman because the definition of marriage has always been between one man and one woman.
Which is why I believe that the SC cannot rule in favor on this because otherwise it will set a precedent which will take marriage out of the State’s hands and into the Federal hands and the Constitution makes no mention of marriage explicitly and there is no precedent for gay marriage even implicitly.
The reason it’s not mentioned in the Constitution is because it is governed under State Law not Federal law. That’s why gay marriage is allowed in California but not Texas.
However, when ruling on marriage issues previously the Supreme Court always understood marriage to mean between one man and one woman because the definition of marriage has always been between one man and one woman.
Which is why I believe that the SC cannot rule in favor on this because otherwise it will set a precedent which will take marriage out of the State’s hands and into the Federal hands and the Constitution makes no mention of marriage explicitly and there is no precedent for gay marriage even implicitly.
S
Sarah_B_Good
Guest
You can’t have it both ways. If you’re going to insist on an originalist interpretation of the Constitution, you have to invalidate any decisions the court has previously made about the constitutionality of marriage. If you’re going to acknowledge the court’s precedent in regard to marriage, you have to accept that they have every right to make a determination about gay marriage. Can’t have it both ways.
O
oldcelt
Guest
All laws written in this country are subject to review for their constitutionality (be it state or federal). I has been that way for over two centuries. Judicial review generally begins in the lower courts and moves so far as the people involved wish to take the case. The final stop is, and has been, the USSC, Marbury vs. Madison (1803).
So, the SC certainly has the power and obligation to rule on SSM.
So, the SC certainly has the power and obligation to rule on SSM.
C
casey_cates
Guest
To Sarah - It’s not having it both ways. You can have a precedent for something without it being mentioned in the Constitution. That argument, IMHO, is a valid one to reject gay marriage. Because marriage in the form of one man/one woman pre-dates the Constitution and has been assumed as the definition for centuries and is the only form of marriage that was used when setting past precedent. " This is what SC Justice Roberts asked in the oral arguments "…thatthey’re(people that are pr SSM) seekingtoredefinetheinstitution.* “Every definitionthatIlookedup,priortoaboutadozen
yearsago,definedmarriageasunitybetweenamananda
womanashusbandandwife." He goes on to further state
"The fundamentalcoreoftheinstitutionistheopposite* sex relationship andyouwanttointroduceintoita same sex*relationship.” as he questions whether or not the USSC should do that.
To OldCelt - Just because they have the power doesn’t mean they should. But the justices were questioning as I am whether they should just let the States decide since marriage is under their jurisdiction.
yearsago,definedmarriageasunitybetweenamananda
womanashusbandandwife." He goes on to further state
"The fundamentalcoreoftheinstitutionistheopposite* sex relationship andyouwanttointroduceintoita same sex*relationship.” as he questions whether or not the USSC should do that.
To OldCelt - Just because they have the power doesn’t mean they should. But the justices were questioning as I am whether they should just let the States decide since marriage is under their jurisdiction.
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
Show me where the Constitution says the federal government can legislate marriage laws.
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
This is downright false. The Supreme Court in many cases brought before it has refused to render a verdict on the grounds that its jurisdiction does not extend to the right to interfere with laws the states have the right to regulate.
So in some cases the SC has the power and the obligation; in other cases it has neither.
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
Deism is a nebulous concept, whereas Christian is specific. Even the Deists sides with the Christians against the atheists. Some of the Deists spoke as if they were Christians, and some of them became increasingly Christian as they matured.
None of them were atheists, at least none whose names you can mention.
C
casey_cates
Guest
Thank you Charlemagne III, my point exactly. The State at this point governs marriage laws. The Justices in the oral arguments were questioning why that should change. And Scalia (I believe it was) argued that if they ruled in favor that it would become essentially binding on all States. They could decide to just leave it up to the individual states.Show me where the Constitution says the federal government can legislate marriage laws.
The oral arguments are pretty interesting for those who have not read them. I tried to copy and paste a portion but it didn’t work very well.
Although unfortunately, it seems just when you think the oral arguments are indicative of how they are going to rule, they sometimes rule the other way.
O
oldcelt
Guest
That they spoke like Christians should be irrelevant to the fact of Marbury
v. Madison. So far as them becoming increasingly Christian… I’d love to see the evidence re: Washington, Madison, Jefferson, Jaye, Adams, Franklin. Hamilton, etc.
I’m fascinated…please, enlighten me.
BTW, life is quite nebulous…though I respect your beliefs…please allow me the same on a philosophy forum.
Franklin may have been an atheist…but he, as with the rest, knew they could not advance without knowing the talk. Look at the writings and the actions…individually.
O
oldcelt
Guest
Marbury v. Madison 1803…how many times must it be written?Thank you Charlemagne III, my point exactly. The State at this point governs marriage laws. The Justices in the oral arguments were questioning why that should change. And Scalia (I believe it was) argued that if they ruled in favor that it would become essentially binding on all States. They could decide to just leave it up to the individual states.
The oral arguments are pretty interesting for those who have not read them. I tried to copy and paste a portion but it didn’t work very well.
Although unfortunately, it seems just when you think the oral arguments are indicative of how they are going to rule, they sometimes rule the other way.
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
Franklin could not have been an atheist. Please supply a quote from his writings indicating his thought in that direction.
Whereas this quote is from his * Autobiography*.
“I never doubted, for instance, the existence of the Deity; that he made the world, and governed it by his Providence; that the most acceptable service of God was the doing good to man; that our souls are immortal; and that all crime will be punished, and virtue rewarded, either here or hereafter.”
The following remarks of Franklin were recorded by James Madison at the Constitutional Convention in 1787:
"I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth – that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings, that except the Lord build the House they labor in vain that build it.’ I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the Builders of Babel; We shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a reproach and bye word down to future ages. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing Government by Human Wisdom and leave it to chance, war, and conquest. "I therefore beg leave to move – that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the Clergy of this City be requested to officiate in that service.”
You know, of course, that the clergy referenced would be mostly Christian clergy.
As for the Founders you mention, time does not permit me to look up appropriate quotes but I’m sure you can find them on the own. I know of none who were atheists, and if they had been, no one has ever been able to find quotes indicating they were. Even Paine wrote an essay against atheism. Though Jefferson denied the divinity of Jesus, he regarded him as the greatest teacher of moral wisdom who ever lived and considered himself a Christian in that sense.
O
oldcelt
Guest
Their refusal to hear a case is a decision. It permits whatever lower court ruling to stand. You and I both know that the powers specifically allocated to the states has been quite a controversial, and, dare I say, inconsistent subject over the past 150 years.
They may throw this back to the states…I lean softly against that outcome.
However, if the court does claim the authority to decide on any given issue, it is nigh impossible to do anything about it. That horse left the barn long ago.
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
The Supreme Court has in the past reversed itself, so no ruling is absolute.
Constitutional Amendments theoretically can reverse any Supreme Court decision.
When you let the horse out of the barn, you do not abandon the right to return it to the barn.
As all Supreme Court justices will admit, the law is an evolving animal.
O
oldcelt
Guest
I truly can’t disagree with anything you said. The difficulty involved…that’s another question.
- Status