Athiests should not be aloud to marry....

[paxvobiscum]

Thanks for the

Fried and toped with poached eggs on toast...yummmy!

 

[JohnCJ]

I think what JohnCJ is asking is something like: would a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage enable the courts to forbid other groups - like atheists - from marrying.

The answer is clearly 'no.'

The fourth amendment looks like it only pertains to illegal serches and seizures but it has been interpreted to mean a right to privacy from all who may invade it. So I believe it could be used in such a fashion because the constituion is open to interpretation to the supreme court.

 

[burrow_owl]

a) The Fourth amendment has nothing to do with marriage.

b) In theory, the Court could interpret the First Amendment to mean that only people with green eyes may eat bananas, but that's about as likely as a court interpreting a gay marriage ban amendment in the way you describe.

 

[Neu-Timothy]

It appears to me the State, having already gotten in the middle of what should be the church's business, is scrambling to make a definition of marriage to prevent the definition from developing into something extreme... for example... a man marries his dog, and adopts all the dogs puppies, (101 of them) and selects them as dependents, and collects, the $400.00 per child tax credit.

I did say extreme...

 

[JohnCJ]

a) The Fourth amendment has nothing to do with marriage.

b) In theory, the Court could interpret the First Amendment to mean that only people with green eyes may eat bananas, but that's about as likely as a court interpreting a gay marriage ban amendment in the way you describe.

a)The fourth amendment guarantees privacy, i keeps people from interfering in a marriage legally outside of said marriage, for example you have no basis to sue a woman that married a man you don't like.

b)wow that has noting to do with freedom of speach or marriage or anything realy, maybe if your statement were more absurd I could think you where joking but that is not the case

 

[JohnCJ]

It appears to me the State, having already gotten in the middle of what should be the church's business, is scrambling to make a definition of marriage to prevent the definition from developing into something extreme... for example... a man marries his dog, and adopts all the dogs puppies, (101 of them) and selects them as dependents, and collects, the $400.00 per child tax credit.

I did say extreme...

To define marriage as a legally binding union between 2 consenting adults would be the only constitutionally sound law and the only law that would have any common sence.
So are absurdities the only argument you can think of?

 

[burrow_owl]

a) The fourteenth amendment is the basis of the right of privacy for things like marriage, abortion, sex, etc. Here's a long-ish history of fourteenth amendment privacy.

b)"wow that has noting to do with freedom of speach or marriage or anything realy"
Which was precisely the point. Bananas have as little to do with the freedom of speech as marriage between atheists has to do with a ban on gay marriage.

 

[paxvobiscum]

It appears to me the State, having already gotten in the middle of what should be the church's business, is scrambling to make a definition of marriage to prevent the definition from developing into something extreme... for example... a man marries his dog, and adopts all the dogs puppies, (101 of them) and selects them as dependents, and collects, the $400.00 per child tax credit.

I did say extreme...

I think a lot of people are "married" to there pets already.

 

[Yitzchak]

Constitutional law and morality are not completely seperate. Morality makes up the law, but does not enumerate it. The law can never change your morality as morality is a personal choice.

Constitutional law is interpreted by courts and our constitution enumerates certain rights guaranteed.

To add to our constitution a restriction of rights will leave those laws open to the same liberal interpretation as all the other rights.

With a conservative court a constitution marriage banning gay marriage can be interpreted as a right to moralize the law and therefor outlaw what the court determines is morally wrong.

So the 1st comandment can be interpreted into the law and legalized. With this notion it would ban the marriage of atheists, agnostics, pagans, wiccans, buddists, muslims, hindus, sikhs and and enumeral amount of other religions.

But then the first amendment would be violated because of the amendment determining morality is the law.
But then as christians our most important standard mandate given to us by God in dealing with our neighbors of loving thy neighbor would be twisted into loving thy neighbor unless I don't like what he believes.
Could a constitutional ban against gay marriage be used to ban marriage of people who do not share the same morals of christians?

The solution is for the State to issue a legal civil union to people. What the church wants to add to that is their business.

 

[JohnCJ]

a) The fourteenth amendment is the basis of the right of privacy for things like marriage, abortion, sex, etc.

b)"wow that has noting to do with freedom of speach or marriage or anything realy"
Which was precisely the point. Bananas have as little to do with the freedom of speech as marriage between atheists has to do with a ban on gay marriage.

a) the fourteeth amendment is equal protection of the law meaning the fourth amendment would have to apply to everyone
b)Athiests don't follow Gods's law as people, Gays don't follow God's law as people. There is a certain parity between the 2 as in they are people.
Are you trying to say your argument is that gay people are like bananas?

 

[paxvobiscum]

The solution is for the State to issue a legal civil union to people. What the church wants to add to that is their business.

Indeed.

 

[paxvobiscum]

a) Are you trying to say your argument is that gay people are like bananas?

I used to know one like that.

 

[JohnCJ]

I used to know one like that.

Thanks for adding to the topic conversation and more

 

[JohnCJ]

a) The fourteenth amendment is the basis of the right of privacy for things like marriage, abortion, sex, etc. Here's a long-ish history of fourteenth amendment privacy.

b)"wow that has noting to do with freedom of speach or marriage or anything realy"
Which was precisely the point. Bananas have as little to do with the freedom of speech as marriage between atheists has to do with a ban on gay marriage.

http://www.wwnorton.com/spitzer/ch4_review.htm
I stand corrected a right to privacy is a combination of the 3rd 4th and 5th amendments. Though my correction in no way lessens what I am saying.

 

[praying]

a)The fourth amendment guarantees privacy, i keeps people from interfering in a marriage legally outside of said marriage, for example you have no basis to sue a woman that married a man you don't like.

b)wow that has noting to do with freedom of speach or marriage or anything realy, maybe if your statement were more absurd I could think you where joking but that is not the case

oops

 

[praying]

It appears to me the State, having already gotten in the middle of what should be the church's business, is scrambling to make a definition of marriage to prevent the definition from developing into something extreme... for example... a man marries his dog, and adopts all the dogs puppies, (101 of them) and selects them as dependents, and collects, the $400.00 per child tax credit.

I did say extreme...

You said extreme not ridiculous