As always, the same old same old missing the foundational point is what you succumb to.
The government most certainly has the authority to restrict a legal contract on the basis of failure to quality for the contractual terms.
If the very contract is defined as "a man and a woman as husband and wife", then, absolutely, the government can verify to see if the contract terms are fulfilled before awarding it .. and disallow awarding the contract to two people of the same sex.
Marriage means "between a man and a woman as husband and wife", always has, always will, no matter what teeny, tiny pocketed erroneously based anomalies may occur from time to time.
The marriage contract requires two people, and, of opposite sex, and, to be husband and wife.
That's what marriage is; anything else isn't marriage.
The SCOTUS, sadly, will be deciding on who, the people of a state or the federal government, gets the opportunity to "redefine" marriage.
There is no constitutional right to marry.
Thus the SCOTUS simply isn't going to Roe-v-Wade "legislate" one a la "right to privacy" .. and thus put religious organizations in a position to conflict with a U.S. government regulation. Not a chance.
The likely outcome will be that it's back to the states to decide .. not a great decision .. but the lesser of the two evils.
Nope. Sorry. "Failure to qualify for the contractual terms" is not blanket authority to provide discrimination. The government could define employment contracts as being between men only, so women can't ever hold a job. That's not going to stand up to constitutional scrutiny: it's a restriction of gender in a private contract that isn't backed up by a sufficiently powerful interest.
No difference in marriage. Sure,
you define marriage as between a man and a woman, but you're still pretending that only one definition of a word can exist, and that these definitions can never be altered. That's just foolish, dog. Wait, did I call you a canine? No. You see, "dog" is often used as slang for "friend."
You are wrong about SCOTUS too. What you describe? Not what they are deciding. Don't believe me? Ask them:
The cases are consolidated and the petitions for writs of certiorari are granted limited to the following questions:
1)Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?
2) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?
They aren't discussing the "definition" of marriage, and they aren't discussing "who gets to define" it. The question is whether or not the 14th amendment requires recognition of same-sex marriage. This isn't a "state versus federal" question, that question is already decided. States get to define marriage,
however, all state legislation is still subject to the 14th amendment.
It should be obvious. I mean, surely you don't think "states get to define marriage" means that states can ban interracial marriage, right? Because that would violate equal protection under the law, right? So, the relevant question isn't a definition or states rights, it's about the 14th amendment. Are you familiar with the varying degrees of constitutional scrutiny applied under the 14th? A distinction of gender must be backed up by an "important state interest" that the measure in question is "substantially related to" furthering.
Now, some argue that intermediate scrutiny isn't the correct level. Some will argue that because SCOTUS has previously defined marriage as a "fundamental right," that strict scrutiny applies. (the test then is a "compelling state interest" and the measure must be "narrowly tailored" to meeting that interest) I'm not sure I buy the argument, but some of the courts have applied this level. Others say that this is about sexuality rather than gender (although I disagree, since the requirement is a
man and a
woman), so only the rational basis test would apply. (the measure must be "rationally related" to a "legitimate state interest.")
So, the challenge issued to proponents of a same-sex marriage to answer that question.
What is the state interest furthered by banning same-sex marriage? Can it even meet the rational basis test?
I offer up that challenge to anyone supporting a same-sex marriage ban. Provide this interest. It's what SCOTUS is asking for.
And Ontologuy, you seem very confident in the outcome. In that case, I will bet money on it. 3 to 1 odds. My $30 dollar DP forum donation versus your $10 forum donation that SCOTUS will rule same-sex marriage bans are unconstitutional.
