Law professor: Slippery slope to legal incest and polygamy

[Gadawg73]

Black men and white men should have the same rights.
Men and women should have the same rights.
Gays and straights should have the same rights.
Straights and straights of the same sex should have the same rights.
Gays and Gays of the same sex should have the same rights.
Using your logic the 2 classes of people should not be treated differently under the law.
Your claim is that if straights want to marry a straight and a gay wants to marry a gay that is a "special right" at the same time you claim they want "special rights".
Interesting and all the while you claim that is not because of religious views.
Right.

 

[kaz]

It's your argument. Your argument is that banning interracial marriage should be constitutional because it's not discriminatory.

Um...maybe Rabbi's right, drugs aren't victimless. I head to read this tripping post.

I didn't say any of that. That isn't my position and it isn't the reason. Which is why she was begging the question. I said it is NOT Constitutional for the Federal government to ban laws preventing interracial marriage. They do by the full faith and credit clause have the power to force States to recognize interracial marriages performed in other States. Or they have the right to tell them they don't have to, just like DOMA was Constitutional. But they don't have the Constitutional authority to direct States to allow interracial marriage.

You're having a hard time because you don't understand the concept of anyone not being a flagrant hypocrite like you are. I am not OK with laws banning interracial marriage (assuming marriage is a government function), but that I think that doesn't give the Federal government authority to force States to accept them. Most if not all will anyway, and the battle for the rest should be done at that level as Constitutionally we are a ... wait for it ... Republic.

You admit in the bolded that you think interracial marriage bans are constitutional.

Only if they're unconstitutional could the states be forced to give them up, and you say the Federal government doesn't have that authority.

This is correct. The confusion on the prior post was the level of government. You said "laws," and I was getting confused if you meant Federal or State laws. I am saying:

1) State laws banning interracial marriage are Constitutional.
2) Federal laws forcing States to either recognize or not recognize interracial marriage are not Constitutional. No Constitutional authority means they have no say.

Constitutional does not mean I agree or disagree with the law. It means whether it's in the Constitution or not. If it's not, that means the Federal government has no authority by the nature of the Constitution and as clearly stated in the 10th amendment.

There are in fact a lot of things that I oppose that the Constitution doesn't address. That doesn't mean that I don't oppose them, that means that I don't argue they are Unconstitutional just because I don't like them. As the left does with gay marriage and a plethora of other issues. Fighting things you disagree with the right way is the way it should be done.

 

[kaz]

Um...maybe Rabbi's right, drugs aren't victimless. I head to read this tripping post.

I didn't say any of that. That isn't my position and it isn't the reason. Which is why she was begging the question. I said it is NOT Constitutional for the Federal government to ban laws preventing interracial marriage. They do by the full faith and credit clause have the power to force States to recognize interracial marriages performed in other States. Or they have the right to tell them they don't have to, just like DOMA was Constitutional. But they don't have the Constitutional authority to direct States to allow interracial marriage.

You're having a hard time because you don't understand the concept of anyone not being a flagrant hypocrite like you are. I am not OK with laws banning interracial marriage (assuming marriage is a government function), but that I think that doesn't give the Federal government authority to force States to accept them. Most if not all will anyway, and the battle for the rest should be done at that level as Constitutionally we are a ... wait for it ... Republic.

You admit in the bolded that you think interracial marriage bans are constitutional.

Only if they're unconstitutional could the states be forced to give them up, and you say the Federal government doesn't have that authority.

Right. States were "forced" to accept them by the SCOTUS. All bans were struck down, not ones that prevented a marriage in another state from being recognized.

Did the Judicial Branch have that authority

no

or was it "judicial activism"?

Yes, and for that reason. The Federal government has no Constitutional authority to either force or deny interracial marriage or gay marriage, therefore it is prohibited to the Federal government. Judicial activism pure and simple.

 

[The Rabbi]

Legalizing gay marriage isn't unequal treatment. Those laws don't deny heterosexuals access to same sex marriage.

Surprisingly you are wrong. A heterosexual man cannot marry another man. Just like a homosexual man. See, equality.

Rabbi, proving the adage, there is nothing new under the sun.

Instead, the State argues that the meaning of the Equal Protection Clause, as illuminated by the statements of the Framers, is only that state penal laws containing an interracial element [p8] as part of the definition of the offense must apply equally to whites and Negroes in the sense that members of each race are punished to the same degree. Thus, the State contends that, because its miscegenation statutes punish equally both the white and the Negro participants in an interracial marriage, these statutes, despite their reliance on racial classifications, do not constitute an invidious discrimination based upon race.
Loving v. Virginia (No. 395)

Your argument is approaching absurdity. Blacks aren't gays. And vice versa. Men aren't women, and vice versa.

 

[RKMBrown]

Um...maybe Rabbi's right, drugs aren't victimless. I head to read this tripping post.

I didn't say any of that. That isn't my position and it isn't the reason. Which is why she was begging the question. I said it is NOT Constitutional for the Federal government to ban laws preventing interracial marriage. They do by the full faith and credit clause have the power to force States to recognize interracial marriages performed in other States. Or they have the right to tell them they don't have to, just like DOMA was Constitutional. But they don't have the Constitutional authority to direct States to allow interracial marriage.

You're having a hard time because you don't understand the concept of anyone not being a flagrant hypocrite like you are. I am not OK with laws banning interracial marriage (assuming marriage is a government function), but that I think that doesn't give the Federal government authority to force States to accept them. Most if not all will anyway, and the battle for the rest should be done at that level as Constitutionally we are a ... wait for it ... Republic.

You admit in the bolded that you think interracial marriage bans are constitutional.

Only if they're unconstitutional could the states be forced to give them up, and you say the Federal government doesn't have that authority.

This is correct. The confusion on the prior post was the level of government. You said "laws," and I was getting confused if you meant Federal or State laws. I am saying:

1) State laws banning interracial marriage are Constitutional.
2) Federal laws forcing States to either recognize or not recognize interracial marriage are not Constitutional. No Constitutional authority means they have no say.

Constitutional does not mean I agree or disagree with the law. It means whether it's in the Constitution or not. If it's not, that means the Federal government has no authority by the nature of the Constitution and as clearly stated in the 10th amendment.

There are in fact a lot of things that I oppose that the Constitution doesn't address. That doesn't mean that I don't oppose them, that means that I don't argue they are Unconstitutional just because I don't like them. As the left does with gay marriage and a plethora of other issues. Fighting things you disagree with the right way is the way it should be done.

You would be correct if you limited your view of the constitution to the first 10 amendments. However, the due process clause of the 14th amendment prohibits the states from limiting life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of US citizens. Civil rights laws also prohibit said activities. Unless you are willing to throw out the 14th due process clause your argument is moot.

 

[The Rabbi]

The right to have your relationship regulated by government, is significantly different than the right to swear before god, friends, and family that you love your partner and will stay with your partner for life.

HUGE difference.

I think we agree that if you want to stand under an apple tree and pledge your love to someone you can do it.

That's not the topic of this thread though.

IMO the correct solution was always to ban government from regulation of marriage based on the first amendment. If however we insist on having government manage our relationships, then they should not be able to ban relationships based on sexual orientation. But lets be clear we are talking about relationship regulation by government thus our relationship with government. Our relationship with government is not the same as our relationship with our chosen life partner(s). As soon as folks change the language of the discussion from marriage regulation to marriage... they change the context of the subject. For example, a broader term than marriage is relationship. Why did you not just say gays should be allowed to be in gay relationships? I can remember a time when gays could not practice gay relationships in public. We've come a long way from those days.

I see you've learned nothing from your beating.
First, where does the 1A discuss marriage?
Second, which state bans any relationship, otehr than underage sex or bestiality?

 

[The Rabbi]

You admit in the bolded that you think interracial marriage bans are constitutional.

Only if they're unconstitutional could the states be forced to give them up, and you say the Federal government doesn't have that authority.

This is correct. The confusion on the prior post was the level of government. You said "laws," and I was getting confused if you meant Federal or State laws. I am saying:

1) State laws banning interracial marriage are Constitutional.
2) Federal laws forcing States to either recognize or not recognize interracial marriage are not Constitutional. No Constitutional authority means they have no say.

Constitutional does not mean I agree or disagree with the law. It means whether it's in the Constitution or not. If it's not, that means the Federal government has no authority by the nature of the Constitution and as clearly stated in the 10th amendment.

There are in fact a lot of things that I oppose that the Constitution doesn't address. That doesn't mean that I don't oppose them, that means that I don't argue they are Unconstitutional just because I don't like them. As the left does with gay marriage and a plethora of other issues. Fighting things you disagree with the right way is the way it should be done.

You would be correct if you limited your view of the constitution to the first 10 amendments. However, the due process clause of the 14th amendment prohibits the states from limiting life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of US citizens. Civil rights laws also prohibit said activities. Unless you are willing to throw out the 14th due process clause your argument is moot.

There is no "right" to marriage that people are being denied.

 

[kaz]

[Equal treatment under the law is all about fairness.

If you take away the Supreme Court's power to interpret the Constitution and apply it questions of constitutionality of local state and federal laws, like I said,

guns would be banned city by city, county by county, state by state.

Is that what you want?

Objection your honor, asked and answered.

I gave you a full and clear answer to this exact question. You're like my kids. When they don't like the answer to a question, they just keep asking it until they get the answer they want.

This was your answer:

NYcarbineer
Elected officials banned handguns in Chicago, and the 9 dictators said 'No'.

I take it you would then prefer that guns could be banned city by city state by state[/COLOR]

YOU:

No. Think about what you just said. You are crying about how government has long power. Federal versus State government power and Government versus the rights of the People are fundamentally different things. You're still just crying about lost government power.

That's supposed to be a full and clear answer? It's an incoherent attempt to attack me.

Or is the 'no' supposed to be your answer?

If that's the case, then clearly you want the 9 'dictators' as you call them to have full power over the states when you like the outcome, as in guns,

but no power over the states when you don't like the outcome, as in marriage equality.

You need to make up your mind.

OK, it wasn't clear because I was in a hurry and I messed up the quotes and had a typo saying "long" for "lost."

Guns are in the Bill of Rights, guns and every other type of marriage isn't. Guns are explicitly a right of the people. What I am saying is that in guns, that is not a State versus Federal power, it is a people's power. The Supreme Court said NEITHER Feds nor State can prevent the PEOPLE from having guns.

On marriage, it's a question of who defines it, the Federal or the State level. So that's government versus government. The Constitution is clear, if marriage is in the Constitution, the Feds get to define it. If it's not, the States do. It's not, the States do.

 

[RKMBrown]

This is correct. The confusion on the prior post was the level of government. You said "laws," and I was getting confused if you meant Federal or State laws. I am saying:

1) State laws banning interracial marriage are Constitutional.
2) Federal laws forcing States to either recognize or not recognize interracial marriage are not Constitutional. No Constitutional authority means they have no say.

Constitutional does not mean I agree or disagree with the law. It means whether it's in the Constitution or not. If it's not, that means the Federal government has no authority by the nature of the Constitution and as clearly stated in the 10th amendment.

There are in fact a lot of things that I oppose that the Constitution doesn't address. That doesn't mean that I don't oppose them, that means that I don't argue they are Unconstitutional just because I don't like them. As the left does with gay marriage and a plethora of other issues. Fighting things you disagree with the right way is the way it should be done.

You would be correct if you limited your view of the constitution to the first 10 amendments. However, the due process clause of the 14th amendment prohibits the states from limiting life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of US citizens. Civil rights laws also prohibit said activities. Unless you are willing to throw out the 14th due process clause your argument is moot.

There is no "right" to marriage that people are being denied.

Wrong. Marriage is a part of life. Government has decided that it will regulate marriage, thus regulate life. Government has decided that it will reward some marriages and deny recognition of other marriages based on sexual orientation, based on religious laws of catholics. This goes against the 1st amendment.

 

[kaz]

You admit in the bolded that you think interracial marriage bans are constitutional.

Only if they're unconstitutional could the states be forced to give them up, and you say the Federal government doesn't have that authority.

This is correct. The confusion on the prior post was the level of government. You said "laws," and I was getting confused if you meant Federal or State laws. I am saying:

1) State laws banning interracial marriage are Constitutional.
2) Federal laws forcing States to either recognize or not recognize interracial marriage are not Constitutional. No Constitutional authority means they have no say.

Constitutional does not mean I agree or disagree with the law. It means whether it's in the Constitution or not. If it's not, that means the Federal government has no authority by the nature of the Constitution and as clearly stated in the 10th amendment.

There are in fact a lot of things that I oppose that the Constitution doesn't address. That doesn't mean that I don't oppose them, that means that I don't argue they are Unconstitutional just because I don't like them. As the left does with gay marriage and a plethora of other issues. Fighting things you disagree with the right way is the way it should be done.

You would be correct if you limited your view of the constitution to the first 10 amendments. However, the due process clause of the 14th amendment prohibits the states from limiting life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of US citizens. Civil rights laws also prohibit said activities. Unless you are willing to throw out the 14th due process clause your argument is moot.

You would be correct if you were referring to government preventing gays from being gay. The discussion is about what government recognizes as marriage. It does not limit your life, limit or pursuit of happiness for government to not recognize your union as marriage. No one has the right to demand things of others, including government. You have the right to be left alone from government without due process. Government not recognizing gay marriage as marriage has nothing to do with preventing people from living their own lives as they see fit. Ditto interracial marriage.

 

[The Rabbi]

You would be correct if you limited your view of the constitution to the first 10 amendments. However, the due process clause of the 14th amendment prohibits the states from limiting life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of US citizens. Civil rights laws also prohibit said activities. Unless you are willing to throw out the 14th due process clause your argument is moot.

There is no "right" to marriage that people are being denied.

Wrong. Marriage is a part of life. Government has decided that it will regulate marriage, thus regulate life. Government has decided that it will reward some marriages and deny recognition of other marriages based on sexual orientation, based on religious laws of catholics. This goes against the 1st amendment.

If that was your entry into "MOst ignorant post filled with biggest errors" I'd say you win.

Just because something is a part of life does not make it protected.
Government's recognition of some marriages is based on the very real fact that some relationships tend to produce good citizens and others don't. Catholicism has nothing to do with it. Ergo it is not a 1A issue.
Ergo you don't knwo what the hell you're talking about. Liek that's news.

 

[RKMBrown]

Objection your honor, asked and answered.

I gave you a full and clear answer to this exact question. You're like my kids. When they don't like the answer to a question, they just keep asking it until they get the answer they want.

This was your answer:

NYcarbineer
Elected officials banned handguns in Chicago, and the 9 dictators said 'No'.

I take it you would then prefer that guns could be banned city by city state by state[/COLOR]

YOU:

No. Think about what you just said. You are crying about how government has long power. Federal versus State government power and Government versus the rights of the People are fundamentally different things. You're still just crying about lost government power.

That's supposed to be a full and clear answer? It's an incoherent attempt to attack me.

Or is the 'no' supposed to be your answer?

If that's the case, then clearly you want the 9 'dictators' as you call them to have full power over the states when you like the outcome, as in guns,

but no power over the states when you don't like the outcome, as in marriage equality.

You need to make up your mind.

OK, it wasn't clear because I was in a hurry and I messed up the quotes and had a typo saying "long" for "lost."

Guns are in the Bill of Rights, guns and every other type of marriage isn't. Guns are explicitly a right of the people. What I am saying is that in guns, that is not a State versus Federal power, it is a people's power. The Supreme Court said NEITHER Feds nor State can prevent the PEOPLE from having guns.

On marriage, it's a question of who defines it, the Federal or the State level. So that's government versus government. The Constitution is clear, if marriage is in the Constitution, the Feds get to define it. If it's not, the States do. It's not, the States do.

What you are referring to is incorporation of the 2nd amendment via the 14th amendment. Marriage is protected by the first amendment. The first amendment is also incorporated by the 14th amendment. Therefore the states cannot restrict marriage based on the first amendment. It's just a matter of time before this crap the states have been doing is thrown out.

 

[kaz]

You would be correct if you limited your view of the constitution to the first 10 amendments. However, the due process clause of the 14th amendment prohibits the states from limiting life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of US citizens. Civil rights laws also prohibit said activities. Unless you are willing to throw out the 14th due process clause your argument is moot.

There is no "right" to marriage that people are being denied.

Wrong. Marriage is a part of life. Government has decided that it will regulate marriage, thus regulate life. Government has decided that it will reward some marriages and deny recognition of other marriages based on sexual orientation, based on religious laws of catholics. This goes against the 1st amendment.

That's a ridiculous argument. No one has a Constitutional right to demand anything of anyone, including government. Your right is for government to not take life, liberty or property AWAY from you without due process.

 

[kaz]

This was your answer:

NYcarbineer
Elected officials banned handguns in Chicago, and the 9 dictators said 'No'.

I take it you would then prefer that guns could be banned city by city state by state[/COLOR]

YOU:

No. Think about what you just said. You are crying about how government has long power. Federal versus State government power and Government versus the rights of the People are fundamentally different things. You're still just crying about lost government power.

That's supposed to be a full and clear answer? It's an incoherent attempt to attack me.

Or is the 'no' supposed to be your answer?

If that's the case, then clearly you want the 9 'dictators' as you call them to have full power over the states when you like the outcome, as in guns,

but no power over the states when you don't like the outcome, as in marriage equality.

You need to make up your mind.

OK, it wasn't clear because I was in a hurry and I messed up the quotes and had a typo saying "long" for "lost."

Guns are in the Bill of Rights, guns and every other type of marriage isn't. Guns are explicitly a right of the people. What I am saying is that in guns, that is not a State versus Federal power, it is a people's power. The Supreme Court said NEITHER Feds nor State can prevent the PEOPLE from having guns.

On marriage, it's a question of who defines it, the Federal or the State level. So that's government versus government. The Constitution is clear, if marriage is in the Constitution, the Feds get to define it. If it's not, the States do. It's not, the States do.

What you are referring to is incorporation of the 2nd amendment via the 14th amendment. Marriage is protected by the first amendment. The first amendment is also incorporated by the 14th amendment. Therefore the states cannot restrict marriage based on the first amendment. It's just a matter of time before this crap the states have been doing is thrown out.

Hmmm.government must recognize your marriage as marriage and give you perks or they are violating your free speech. Say what?

 

[Contumacious]

[

On marriage, it's a question of who defines it, the Federal or the State level. So that's government versus government. The Constitution is clear, if marriage is in the Constitution, the Feds get to define it. If it's not, the States do. It's not, the States do.

Marriage at Common Law

The common law requires no particular ceremony to the valid celebration of marriage. The consent of the parties is all that is necessary, and as marriage is said to be a contract jure gentium, that consent is all that is needful by natural or public law. If the contract be made per verba de presenti, or if made per verba de futuro, and followed by consummation, it amounts to a valid marriage, and which the parties cannot dissolve, if otherwise competent; it is not necessary that a clergyman should be present to give validity to the marriage; the consent of the parties may be declared before a magistrate, or simply before witnesses; or subsequently confessed or acknowledged, or the marriage may even be inferred from continual cohabitation, and reputation as husband and wife, except in cases of civil actions for adultery, or public prosecutions for bigamy. 1 Silk. 119; 4 Burr. 2057; Dougl. 171; Burr. Settl. Cas. 509; 1 Dow, 148; 2 Dow, 482; 4 John. 2; 18 John. R. 346; 6 Binn, 405; 1 Penn. R. 452; 2 Watts, R. 9. But a promise to marry at a future time, cannot, by any process of law, be converted into a marriage, though the breach of such promise will be the foundation of an action for damages.

.

 

[The Rabbi]

This was your answer:

NYcarbineer
Elected officials banned handguns in Chicago, and the 9 dictators said 'No'.

I take it you would then prefer that guns could be banned city by city state by state[/COLOR]

YOU:

No. Think about what you just said. You are crying about how government has long power. Federal versus State government power and Government versus the rights of the People are fundamentally different things. You're still just crying about lost government power.

That's supposed to be a full and clear answer? It's an incoherent attempt to attack me.

Or is the 'no' supposed to be your answer?

If that's the case, then clearly you want the 9 'dictators' as you call them to have full power over the states when you like the outcome, as in guns,

but no power over the states when you don't like the outcome, as in marriage equality.

You need to make up your mind.

OK, it wasn't clear because I was in a hurry and I messed up the quotes and had a typo saying "long" for "lost."

Guns are in the Bill of Rights, guns and every other type of marriage isn't. Guns are explicitly a right of the people. What I am saying is that in guns, that is not a State versus Federal power, it is a people's power. The Supreme Court said NEITHER Feds nor State can prevent the PEOPLE from having guns.

On marriage, it's a question of who defines it, the Federal or the State level. So that's government versus government. The Constitution is clear, if marriage is in the Constitution, the Feds get to define it. If it's not, the States do. It's not, the States do.

What you are referring to is incorporation of the 2nd amendment via the 14th amendment. Marriage is protected by the first amendment. The first amendment is also incorporated by the 14th amendment. Therefore the states cannot restrict marriage based on the first amendment. It's just a matter of time before this crap the states have been doing is thrown out.

The 1A does not restrict marriage. Dunce.

 

[RKMBrown]

There is no "right" to marriage that people are being denied.

Wrong. Marriage is a part of life. Government has decided that it will regulate marriage, thus regulate life. Government has decided that it will reward some marriages and deny recognition of other marriages based on sexual orientation, based on religious laws of catholics. This goes against the 1st amendment.

If that was your entry into "MOst ignorant post filled with biggest errors" I'd say you win.

Just because something is a part of life does not make it protected.
Government's recognition of some marriages is based on the very real fact that some relationships tend to produce good citizens and others don't. Catholicism has nothing to do with it. Ergo it is not a 1A issue.
Ergo you don't knwo what the hell you're talking about. Liek that's news.

Marriage is most certainly a part of life. The SCOTUS already ruled on that. Further marriage is a RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION. Always has been in this country. Therefore the Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof means no laws respecting marriage. Further, by incorporation, the states also shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof including marriage.

 

[kaz]

[

On marriage, it's a question of who defines it, the Federal or the State level. So that's government versus government. The Constitution is clear, if marriage is in the Constitution, the Feds get to define it. If it's not, the States do. It's not, the States do.

Marriage at Common Law

The common law requires no particular ceremony to the valid celebration of marriage. The consent of the parties is all that is necessary, and as marriage is said to be a contract jure gentium, that consent is all that is needful by natural or public law. If the contract be made per verba de presenti, or if made per verba de futuro, and followed by consummation, it amounts to a valid marriage, and which the parties cannot dissolve, if otherwise competent; it is not necessary that a clergyman should be present to give validity to the marriage; the consent of the parties may be declared before a magistrate, or simply before witnesses; or subsequently confessed or acknowledged, or the marriage may even be inferred from continual cohabitation, and reputation as husband and wife, except in cases of civil actions for adultery, or public prosecutions for bigamy. 1 Silk. 119; 4 Burr. 2057; Dougl. 171; Burr. Settl. Cas. 509; 1 Dow, 148; 2 Dow, 482; 4 John. 2; 18 John. R. 346; 6 Binn, 405; 1 Penn. R. 452; 2 Watts, R. 9. But a promise to marry at a future time, cannot, by any process of law, be converted into a marriage, though the breach of such promise will be the foundation of an action for damages.

.

I'm not sure how that changes anything. If you live in a common law State or not is still State law.

 

[RKMBrown]

OK, it wasn't clear because I was in a hurry and I messed up the quotes and had a typo saying "long" for "lost."

Guns are in the Bill of Rights, guns and every other type of marriage isn't. Guns are explicitly a right of the people. What I am saying is that in guns, that is not a State versus Federal power, it is a people's power. The Supreme Court said NEITHER Feds nor State can prevent the PEOPLE from having guns.

On marriage, it's a question of who defines it, the Federal or the State level. So that's government versus government. The Constitution is clear, if marriage is in the Constitution, the Feds get to define it. If it's not, the States do. It's not, the States do.

What you are referring to is incorporation of the 2nd amendment via the 14th amendment. Marriage is protected by the first amendment. The first amendment is also incorporated by the 14th amendment. Therefore the states cannot restrict marriage based on the first amendment. It's just a matter of time before this crap the states have been doing is thrown out.

The 1A does not restrict marriage.

Exactly. Do you not know what that means?

 

[RKMBrown]

OK, it wasn't clear because I was in a hurry and I messed up the quotes and had a typo saying "long" for "lost."

Guns are in the Bill of Rights, guns and every other type of marriage isn't. Guns are explicitly a right of the people. What I am saying is that in guns, that is not a State versus Federal power, it is a people's power. The Supreme Court said NEITHER Feds nor State can prevent the PEOPLE from having guns.

On marriage, it's a question of who defines it, the Federal or the State level. So that's government versus government. The Constitution is clear, if marriage is in the Constitution, the Feds get to define it. If it's not, the States do. It's not, the States do.

What you are referring to is incorporation of the 2nd amendment via the 14th amendment. Marriage is protected by the first amendment. The first amendment is also incorporated by the 14th amendment. Therefore the states cannot restrict marriage based on the first amendment. It's just a matter of time before this crap the states have been doing is thrown out.

Hmmm.government must recognize your marriage as marriage and give you perks or they are violating your free speech. Say what?

Kaz, there are a number of clauses in the first amendment, where speech is only one part. The applicable part is highlighted below:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.