.jpg)
The Supreme Court will take up California's ban on
same-sex marriage, a case that could give the justices the chance to rule on
whether gay Americans have the same constitutional right to marry as
heterosexuals.
The justices said Monday they will review a federal
appeals court ruling that struck down the state's gay marriage ban, though on
narrow grounds. The San Francisco-based appeals court said the state could not
take away the same-sex marriage right that had been granted by California's
Supreme Court.
The court also will decide whether Congress can
deprive legally married gay couples of federal benefits otherwise available to
married people. A provision of the federal Defense of Marriage Act limits a
range of health and pension benefits, as well as favorable tax treatment, to
heterosexual couples.
According
to SCOTUS Blog, the court is expected to hear arguments in late March
and make a decision in late June:
First of all, there is no, and I repeat no, Constitutional right to marriage. It just isn't in our Constitution. Besides that, there is no right in any state to marriage -- it is a privilege that the state extends. Hence, the need for a license. It is like saying you have a right to a driver's license, something that you have to qualify for and that the state can restrict.
ReplyDeleteThe only way that the court can rule on this, and I think that this is what the case is about, is the denial of marriage benefits if a couple is legally married in state where gay marriage is legal and they move to a state where it isn't.
In a case like this the state (CA) may have to grant those privileges on a case by case basis because of the Full Faith and Credit Clause. This does not require or force CA to legalize gay marriage. However, it could become quite cumbersome if it didn't.
In Loving v Virginia (1967) the Supreme Court determined marriage to be a “fundamental freedom”. In Zablocki v Redhail (1978) the Supreme Court determined marriage to be a “fundamental right”.
DeleteWhen you say there is no constitutional right to marry you’d best take it up with the nine justices.
To government “marriage” is a secular contract between the parties and the State.
ReplyDeleteThe State is the principal party and the (husband & wife) are secondary/inferior parties. Simply put, it is a three-way contract between the State, as Principal, and the (husband & wife) as the other two legs of the Contract.
God is merely a “Dotted Line” and not officially included in the Secular Contract. The State views any mention of God as irrelevant or even meaningless.
In civil law, “marriage” is considered to be a “for-profit business venture”.