With Loving v. Virginia I wasn’t using that as an example of the 14th being applied to the same sex debate. Re-read the posts and who I was replying to, DONTREADONME commented on forcing the rest of the states to go along with something that only 2% wanted. I gave the example of Loving v. Virginia as a case that essentially did that and yet the Nation survived when it had to force other states into allowing interracial marriages even though a bunch of them did not want it.

Funny how they can use the federal government to reach into other peoples lives and tell them how they ought to live, but absolutely despise it when it happens to them.

The difference is that your amendments are hypothetical, while the 14th Amendment is the law.

Consistent with the amendment’s history, the Supreme Court has consistently held that laws can make make distinctions on the basis of sex, where such distinctions based on race or religion would be clearly unconstitutional.

Prohibiting a white man from marrying a black woman, when a black man is allowed to do so, is racial discrimination against white men, a legal distinction between races prohibited by the 14th Amendment.

Similarly, prohibiting a woman from marrying a woman, when a man is allowed to do so, is sex discrimination against women. The Constitutional difference is that the 14th Amendment allows some discrimination on the basis of sex where there is some plausibly arguable basis for the legal distinction. It doesn’t require that the Court agree with the prudential judgment supporting the law, only that it have some relation to the biological differences between the sexes, e.g. reproduction.

If the Equal Rights [between sexes] Amendment had been ratified, then it would be a whole different story and the sex discrimination against same sex marriage would be unconstitutional; but it was not ratified.

Full faith and credit for some state’s marriage between two women or two men is only relevant in another jurisdiction, if that jurisdiction has a legal institution that includes such contractual relationships in its definition. Because most states have no such legal institution, they have nothing where granting "full faith and credit" to same sex marriages in other states would have any relevance.

The federal government’s definition of marriage between one man and one woman only applies where it dishes out costs or benefits (e.g. higher taxes if married for couples where both earn good incomes; lower taxes if married for couples where one has low earnings). That does nothing to prevent a state from imposing costs or benefits on same sex couples it recognizes as married, so Massachusetts’ states rights argument is groundless unless its "sovereignty" includes overriding the federal government’s own right to define marriage for purposes of federal law.

Legal recognition of same sex marriage is inevitable, as opponents die of old age and supporters reach voting age. Still there’s no constitutional requirement that the federal government recognize same sex marriage before there’s majority support for it. When it’s enacted, it should be through democratic self government, not by judicial literary license.

C’mon marriage as a western institution has its roots in business agreements between royalty and powerful families.

“Re-defining that institution based on feelings essentially renders the institution a farce”

Seriously? You mean feelings like love? You get married to have babies not because you love someone?

Silly argument.

Re-defining that institution based on feelings essentially renders the institution a farce subject to scoffing ridicule by the yutes. It divorces marriage from its civilizing function and furthers the substitution of Uncle Sam for fathers.

I was just trying to give you a non-lawyers take on the manner from what I know, and how in my line of work I watch companies use the law to twist things to support their cause.

UNLESS

Justice Kennedy wants to join the 4 libs and re-write the Constitution.

I got nothing, I’m just predicting where the fight is going to go.

I’m all for letting each state deciding that marriage means to the people of that state, but my understanding of the full faith and credit provisions of the US Constitution is going to make that very hard to do. DOMA right now keeps that conflict from being taken to the Supreme Court.

Mike or one of the lawyer types can probably do a better job of explaining the law and courts. My issue is how to keep the will of the people in force, DOMA or no, and not have another will of the people issue, in something like 30 states, be overturned by Gods in Black robes.

There is *no* way that places like Utah and Texas should be forced to take on, let along recognize, the insane policies of places like MA & VT. They’ll simply ‘opt out’ instead of submitting to this kind of tyranny.

The day DOMA is struck down in the courts, is the day the clock starts ticking on The United States of America.

And I don’t think I’m kidding…

By DOMA, the federal government has determined what marriage is, it is defined; therefore, for the purposes of full faith and credit to apply marriage must be between a man and woman, otherwise default to a intrastate policy. If a state wants to accept it, fine, but a state that rejects it does not have to accept the other states policy. I do not see this as a law or act issue for the states. This full faith and credit clause has caused many problems due to the infinite interpretations and loose argument made by certain people to make it justify their case. We keep going down this road, and all you have left is a Central Government, why have states?

Lastly, if this is how the left and the gay marriage supporters want to take this cause, then I am for sinking the marriage ship so we do not have to deal with the future incarnations of marriage. I will vote for that before I we continue to push definitions and cause cultural strife for the purpose of pleasing 2% of the population.