Thread: This gay marriage thing is blowin' up

Originally Posted by MrShrike

But I would tend to think of it from this angle: is there any argument that could be made before the supreme court that state laws that prohibit gay laws unions are an unjust restriction on personal liberty? By which I mean, states are limiting people's freedom (or unenumerated rights, perhaps?) without reasonable justification?

Yes, there is an argument to be made on that front. The argument is that denying marriage rights to same-sex couples violates the "equal protection" clause of the United States Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment ("No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."). There are numerous benefits and privileges that attach to marriage (related to Social Security, inheritance, child custody, medical decisions, taxes, etc. etc. etc.), so laws denying same-sex couples the right to marry are depriving them of rights that are granted to heterosexual couples who marry. This is why the DOMA is unconstitutional, in my opinion. It's worth noting that a number of state constitutions also include equal protection clauses of their own, which have been the basis of state court decisions overturning anti-gay-marriage laws in those states (e.g., Iowa).

Originally Posted by Killuminati

Why is it that if you are swearing to tell the truth you put your hand on a BIBLE and reference god in the oath? That may not seem like a big deal but it goes against the principles of our country. When will people learn that the bible's place is in church or someones home and not in our political/judicial system?

To be fair, you don't swear on a bible unless you want to. Generally the court will just have you raise your right hand and swear to tell the truth. They only bring out the religious texts if someone requests them, and then it's whatever text you want, not necessarily a bible (e.g., Christians can request a bible to swear on, Muslims can request a Qur'an, etc.). The same is true of elected officials swearing oaths of office: Using a bible isn't the default, they only swear on a bible if they are Christian and request one (it's just that most elected officials are Christian, and thus do so). Basically, anytime you have to swear an oath you can swear it on whatever religious text you want, or no religious text at all, and the law doesn't favor any one of these options over the others. Seems fair to me.