They set guidelines for could and couldn't marry with the purpose of restricting a specific group of people from marriage. Are you serious?
No, they set guidelines for whom clerks would issue marriage licenses to. People were still free to do as they pleased. Just as they continue to do today.
Do you believe people should be denied rights based on the gender of their partner as well as their own gender?
Absolutely not.
Rights, however, are
negative in nature. You no more have a
right to the State issuing you a marriage license than you have a right to the State issuing you a drivers permit or a liquor license. In fact, since the lack of those two items will actually restrict your activity, there is a
better case that you have a right to them.
States aren't barring you from carrying a gun based on your gender. They do so based on whether or not you're a resident. I am fine with that.
So you believe in stripping away people's rights based on where they live. Nice.
This is all to say that reciprocity WAS NOT the issue. It was the fact that they didn't recognize it period because of the kind of people involved.
On the contrary - reciprocity was very much an issue. People got very huffy and very certain and firm on the Critical Absolute Constitutional Importance of the Full Faith And Credit clause.... until they were asked about actual Constitutionally enshrined rights such as those that stem from the 2nd Amendment... at which point for some reason that was different.....
Because, as Chief Justice Roberts pointed out, it was never about the Constitutionality. It was about achieving the End.
Trying to reframe the discussion to be about recognition of out of state marriages, when the discussion was crafted around bans on gay marriage is kind of silly.
Gay marriages were not banned. :roll: no pastors were rounded up, no one was arrested for having a gay wedding. The only people restricted were the state actors who issue marriage licenses.
I'm sure people for the most part are fine with states having basic restrictions on marriage (like: You can't be relatives).
Yeah. Or, "You can't both be dudes". Basic restrictions like that.
But you now have a rather serious problem here - because
you are the one claiming a
Positive Right to receipt of government marriage licenses.... and then you turn around and declare that you are cool with taking this Right - this thing that we must not take away from people via the states - you are cool with taking that away from people whom you don't approve of. Why does your approval determine whether or not they should have rights?