Another question/comment but alas he missed the point. This person is challenging my assertion that Marriage as a law must stand the test of the constitution and the supreme court will strike it down for failing the “Equal Protections Clause” contained there in.
“Re-defining marriage exceeds the authority of the Supreme Court as set forth in Sections 1 and 2 of the U.S. Constitution. Section 2 of the Constitution clearly states that “The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under this authority…” The functional phrase in this Section is “…arising under this Constitution…” The definition of marriage does not fall under the purview of the Constitution, and it never has. Our Founding Fathers did not define marriage, nor does the Constitution. No part of Section 1 or 2 or any other section of the Constitution empowers the justices to even hear a case in which their ruling is dependent on re-defining a concept that falls outside the limits of the Constitution.”
Ahh sir here is where you are wrong. We are not talking about the religious definition of marriage not the “tradition” of marriage. We are talking about the LAW of marriage which grants rights and privileges recognized by all states and the federal government. All laws must stand the test of the equal protections clause of “the constitution” which falls clearly under “this authority”.
Nice try but I’m afraid you’re wrong too.
For any law to be exclusionary there must be valid and compelling reasons why the exclusions are present. No one is able to answer why I should be excluded from this law.
Let’s not forget the “tradition” of marriage and the law have evolved over time. In traditional marriage for 1000s of years the woman was only defined by her husband. She herself had no equality in marriage, society, or any role outside being a wife. This has changed in recent times. The law at one point excluded mixed race couples. That was shot down as not qualifying under the equal protections clause of the constitution.
To see the case about mixed races look up Loving vs Virginia.
This is one of 12 cases where the “law” of marriage was changed because there was no valid reason to exclude some group of people from the protections of the law.
Deut 7:3 “You shall not intermarry with them, giving your daughters to their sons or taking their daughters for your sons,”
Other quotes from Ezra, Nehemiah and other places were used then to defend marriage from the “abomination” of mixed race marriage. Then as now people cried out this will ruin America, it will destroy the fabric of the family, it will weaken and demean marriage. They were wrong then and still today use the exact same tired arguments to defend a law because they believe the law is scared.
The big problem is laws of man are just that. Laws of man. We aren’t talking about biblical definition, or some ideal of long standing tradition known as common law. Common law is also “mans” law. Lucky for us we have a constitution that all laws must be applied to as a litchis test. A big part of this test is does the law cover all people the same and not discriminate against any group.
That is called Equal Protections and are promised by our constitution and upheld as the final word by our supreme court.
** One more thing to cover while I can is Rick Santorum and his idiotic statements about the supreme court.
So mister Santorum the supreme court doesn’t have final say? What other laws made legal by this court do you intend to over turn? Roe v Wade being just one of 100s.
So two questions I’d ask Mr. Rick Santorum
When do you sir believe this became a dictatorship where the rule of law can be ignored on a whim?
What happens when you aren’t in power and others trample your rights and say but the supreme court isn’t the final say so we decided to bring back eugenics against republicans or against white males?
Ahh then you’d be screaming but the court said…..
Shut it Rick!