Is it unconstitutional to not let homosexuals marry and have the same rights as a married straight couple?

If not, can you quote me something in the constitution that says it isn't?





Serious question. Thank you for any replies.Is it unconstitutional to not let homosexuals marry and have the same rights as a married straight couple?
It comes down to whether marriage is a civil right. The USSC did declare marriage to be a civil right of man, and they didn't specify for interracial couples (since that what the case was regarding), or heterosexuals, or any other specifications. That it is a civil right in general. From Loving v Virginia, 1967:





“Marriage is one of the ‘basic civil rights of man,’ fundamental to our very existence and survival…. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis…embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law…Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person…resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.”





EDIT:





Coldwar:





Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but current dictionaries now include the union of man/man or woman/woman under the definition of marriage. Might want to try a newer edition.


Also, that old chestnut the anti-gays use about how they can already get married if they want to - just marry someone of the opposite sex - is ridiculous. Even the legitimate anti-gay lobby doesn't try to trot that one out.Is it unconstitutional to not let homosexuals marry and have the same rights as a married straight couple?
Marriage - noun


1. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.


2. the legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of a man and woman to live as husband and wife, including the accompanying social festivities: to officiate at a marriage.





Homosexuals do have the same rights as everyone else. Marriage is not a right, it is a religious sacrament recognized by secular governments. Homosexuals can go ahead and marry anyone they want of the opposite sex; so they do enjoy the same rights as anyone else.
I agree with the earlier poster who cited that non-married heterosexual couples should have rights, too. I have asked many Gay and Lesbian activists about 'heterosexual couples' having rights, too, without being married. Their responses have been the same -- they all clam up.


If gay and lesbian couples are given these rights, then this would be clear discrimination for heterosexual couples who are not married.
The spirit of the Constitution is about freedom for all. They may not have foreseen a time where homosexuals would want to be married just like they didn't consider slavery and women's rights specifically. That's why the Constitution was amended along the way to specify that. So in that spirit, I think it's unconstitutional to not allow homosexuals to wed. I think it was Ben Franklin who said: ';If it doesn't pick my pocket or break my leg...then why do I care what others do?'; I know I didn't quote that quite right but the thought is this: No victim no crime. Two consenting adults of the same sex who want to marry doesn't hurt me in the least.





Same could be said for people in this country who want to smoke pot. It's unconstitutional to make it illegal for those who want to partake.
Homosexuals cannot marry.





Marriage is defined in many places as a union between a man and a woman.





Think of marriage as a circle, perfectly round.





A circle cannot have a corner.





If you draw a circle with four corners, you have drawn a square.





Gay marriage is a square circle.





No such thing.





It cannot exist.
IMO it works like this: Our legal code is gender neutral and has been for several decades. Laws that make a distinction between male persons and female persons have been overturned by our courts again and again, with the court insisting that the laws must be in gender neutral language to be Constitutional. Unless government can show compelling interest in using gender specific language in that part of our civil code dealing with marriage (or domestic partnership or whatever you choose to call it), then government must use the default gender neutral language.





Compel means force. If using gender neutral language meant violating the rights of others or creating a danger to our national security, then out government would be forced to avoid that gender neutral language. If not, then gender neutral language must be used. Ergo, laws will read ';two persons'; and not ';one male person and one female person.';
Smoove B has it right. There is no such thing as ';Gay Rights';.





My rant:


Until fairly recently, marriage has been reserved for men and women as it should be, but if enough vote hungry politicians can be convinced, They will conjure up just about anything to get a vote. I haven't read where voting is reserved just for humans. If a polygamist liberal were to marry a flock of sheep he (or she) could make a lot of money at election time. They could all get a absentee ballot and sway some


elections.
It would be unconsitutional. However, it is also unconsitutional to have the federal government dictate marriage laws at all (that goes for straight people too). The whole thing needs to be flushed down the toilet, and let each state handle it the way they want to.
According to the US Supreme Court...whose duty it is to enforce Constitution


1) Marriage is a basic civil right


2) basic civil rights cannot be voted on





They made no mention on marriage being gay or straight...and without such declarations it means ALL marriages are basic civil rights





So basically it is illegal and unconstitutional to ban or deny gay marriage in America





Too bad Americans refuse to follow our own Constitution and laws when it comes to a group of people we feel better than.





Stupid activists have taken away our ability to hold down blacks, jews, hispanics, asians, christian fundies and rock bands....so the only acceptable bigotry we have now is gays





What will we be able to live in this modern world if we cannot be bigots to gays....I shudder to think what will happen if we lose that last fig leaf...the Earth's core will freeze and birds will start attacking all newborns. The sun's rays will mutate all fish to be hyper-intelligent land dwellers who will hunt and kill people for food





all because gays were treated like people


(serious answer with some fun thrown in at the end)
yes.





Unlike what ';geniuses'; like west europe mutt think, marriage was not a religious ceremony, at least not one denomination. Marriage was used as a tool LONG before christians claimed they invented it. Of course they also claim they invented the world 6,000 years ago, so you have to take what they say with a grain of salt. A LARGE grain of salt.
Many people believe banning gay marriage violates the Constitution's equal protection clause. Personally I agree. One American should have the same rights as another American regardless of their sexual orientation. I believe the SCOTUS will eventually rule on this and strike down the bans on gay marriage.
Marriage is a religious institution and we have the separation of church and state. It should be up to the individual religions who can marry or at least the states.
The Civil Rights Act should have cleared up the issue once and for all, but apparently it hasn't.





Gay marriage doesn't affect me or my heterosexual marriage, so I don't really care what those people do.
Homosexuals do have the same rights as everyone else, what they don't have is uber rights, and neither should they have more rights than anyone else. God bless.
They have the same rights it is called a ';Civil Union';.





Marriage is between; One man and One Woman.





Get over it and move forward,
No. The Constitution is silent as to so-called ';gay rights';. No one in 1787 dreamed that gays would assert a right to be married.
because marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman. homosexuals can get married in a few states but that's not enough is it
Oh my heck just what the H is the matter with you?





Everyone knows nobody who is *whispering* homosexual can get into the Celestial Kingdom!!
Marriage is a religious ceremony......since dems hate Christians they shouldn't be allowed to marry.
This will need to be interpreted by the supreme court.


Until then we can only speculate on the legality.
No but the constitution isn't clear on all freedoms and rights that is why laws are made.
The federal government has determined that is a state issue.
The U.S. Constitution doesn't say either way. The Fed's ruled it a decision to be made by individual states.
Then straight people who live together should get the same rights.
I doubt the framers had such things in mind when creating the constitution.
';Equal Protection of the Laws';
Does anyone really care what these media grabbers do. Marry if they want. I support their desire to wed.
sounds faire to me,