<p>“Are you actually arguing that the privileges or immunities clause only applies to the states and not the federal government? You should do some more reading on constitutional law.”</p>
<p>Uhhhh…read the post I’m responding to. The person incorrectly asserts DOMA violates the 14th Amendment. The 14th involves states. the 5th involves the federal gov. Anyone that says the 14th applies to the fed gov needs to read con law, and if you want to sit there and say I don’t understand the constitution when you CLEARLY don’t understand what I’m saying, you need to do a little more reading yourself. When did I EVER say privelages and immunities doesn’t apply to the fed? Seriously, don’t make **** up. You are an idiot if you think the 14th applies to the fed. </p>
<p>“Tiff only 9 states currently allow common law marriages. Only 5 states “grandfathered” in correct common law marriages when they took this out of their laws/statues/books whatever.”</p>
<p>When did I say all states had common law marriage? Useless insertion of fact.</p>
<p>“Tiff, I suggest you educate yourself on gay rights and the struggles the LGBT community has had to face. I reccommend Good As You and reading over the Prop 8 Trial Tracker. Especially the liveblogging of the case back in January. It’s a tragedy that so few people have actually taken the time to read it and educate themselves.”</p>
<p>So because I don’t think a right to marriage exists in the constitution, I am intolerant of the gay community? Believe it or not, I have several gay and lesbian friends. When did I ever say I had a problem with gays? You think because I don’t think any right to marriage exists, I’m attacking the gay community? Please. Like I said, I don’t give a **** if gays marry. </p>
<p>“To my understanding, civil rights involve areas surrounding “race”, sex, gender, etc. Brown v. BOE was decided prior to 1964 and wasn’t justified using the commerce clause. I believe you’re thinking of the congressional civil rights act of that year.”</p>
<p>Gender wasn’t oringinally included in the Civ rights amendments. Brown didn’t grant equal rights at all. It stated that black schools were not EQUAL to white ones, therefore the school needed to desegregate. It hardly creates equal rights. Read the opinion. It UPHELD seperate but equal. The Civil rights cases upheld the civil rights act using the commerce clause- heart of ATL v US (the other case escapes me). Brown’s ruling was completely different than heart of ATL. </p>
<p>“Yes, but the classification of “suspect” isn’t really necessary for marriage rights. There are many cases in which the SCOTUS uses the standard of strict scrutiny for laws which target a group which may or may not be a suspect–see San Antonio v. Rodriguez–but this method isn’t always used. In those instances in which the group is not deemed suspect, the court applies a rational basis rationale, which states that “if a law neither burdens a fundamental right nor targets a suspect class, we will uphold the legislative classification so long as it bears a rational relation to some legitimate end.” Of course, if the reasoning behind a law fails to exhibit a rational relation to some legitimate end, it will not be upheld by the court, such as the Amendment 2 of Colorado Constitution in Romer v. Evans. I fail to see how a ban on gay marriage meets those qualifications either.”</p>
<p>I don’t need an explanation of how a court determines if a group is a suspect class. The court uses strict scrutiny for minorities and quasi suspect classes (minorities and women), and rational basis for all others. I never said it would pass rational basis, I am arguing that marriage isn’t a right. </p>
<p>“Again, you clearly don’t understand what you’re you’re trying to discuss. You’re talking about Section 2. Read Section 3 of DOMA - it specifically states that the federal government is to define marriage as between a man and a woman.
Granted this section was just struck down a few weeks ago, but there will almost certainly be appeals.”</p>
<p>Why would I discuss a section that was just challenged in federal court? It’s up in the air, it’s under review. The court’s will decide if it’s legitimate. Despite DOMA, states still have moved forward with legalizing gay marriage. Correct? So obviously it isn’t preventing all gays from getting married. Honestly, if the gov wants to grant additional benefits to married couples, they should be allowed to define what qualifications they should meet. I will say our society has come a long way- there was a time when homosexuality was illegal, and now the government has no laws banning homosexual relations, and is considered allowing them to get married. I see “progress”, not oppression. DOMA doesn’t ban gays from being together, living together and staying together. </p>
<p>Where would a right to marriage be found? I don’t think there is a right to legal recognization for any union. This all comes back to giving the gov too much power. Instead of lobbying for more state control over marriage, people should be challenging the states monopoly over marriage. The real tyranny here is that the government solely has the power to determine marriage. Then again, since they grant special benefits to married couples, they need some requirements. Overall, be angry at big government liberals for granting power to the states in the first place to be the sole determinates of what marriage is. Gay activists are fighting the wrong battle.</p>