Whether they were arrested or just prevented from visiting a dying partner, or receiving death benefits, is irrelevant.
Failing to recognize a marriage deprives same-sex couples of various liberties. This includes the previously mentioned death benefits, property inheritance, medical power of attorney, automatic child custody, spousal privilege in a criminal or civil case, etc.You don't know how real my anger and indignation are buster. Loving v. Virginia went after laws that were used to deprive citizens of other liberties on the basis of them getting a legal marriage in another state. I do think they were gravely mistaken to effectively argue that legal recognition of marriage was a constitutional right, but in the context they were at least partly acting in response to the rather odious nature of the law itself. No such forgivable circumstances exist here. This is pure politics plain and simple.
State legislation falls under the jurisdiction of the constitution. Loving v. Virginia was decided on the 14th amendment.Certainly, I recognize that something does not need to be mentioned, but it should generally be understood to have been part of the unstated rights, privileges, and immunities being protected. Legal recognition of marriage has always been considered to fall within the jurisdiction of the state legislatures, not the constitution.
States are bound by the US Constitution. If the equal protection clause is violated, it doesn't matter whether it is a federal, state, or local legislative action, nor does it matter if it was a ballot measure voted on by the people. All are subject to the Constitution, the supreme law of the land.The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.
Irrelevant.Laws that hadn't been seriously enforced for many years and most did not single out any specific group of people. The case that got it brought before the court was a rare exception and mostly the product of various actions that should have gotten them arrested anyway.
No, but if the state offers them at all, they must comply with the Equal Protection clause. The state has the constitutional authority to not recognize any marriage benefits at all, if they want to. But good luck passing that bill.No one has a right to those benefits.
Slippery slope to more rights is a bull**** argument. People said the same about interracial marriage. If you allow interracial marriage, you have to allow people to marry children and animals! Bull****. I could just as easily say if you allow heterosexual marriage you have to allow people to marry furniture.Except that same legal argument opens the door for polygamy and that isn't some bull**** argument. There is a very easy way to make the argument that banning polygamy is unconstitutional using the arguments currently being upheld by the Supreme Court.
Besides, you're wrong. Race and gender are protected classifications under the 14th amendment. Number of persons in a contract is not.
So you think interracial marriage bans are constitutional?Right next to where it says any legal recognition of a marriage is a right presumably. In other words, nowhere.