Re: New Amendment proposal

More | Report Post

On 10/14/04, Interested party wrote:
> On 9/29/04, anonymous wrote:
>> Recently, there has been a lot of discussion proposing a
>> constitutional amendment to essentially codify that
>> marriage is only between one man and one woman.
>>
>> One thing I have yet to hear discussed is how this would
>> affect the freedom of religion clause.
>>
>> If this amendment were to be adopted, then the only legal
>> religions allowed would be either one of the Christain
>> flavors or Judaism; almost all other religions allow
>> polygamy. Granted, people of those religions who currently
>> live in the US do not practice polygamy, because every
>> state has laws against it. This amendment would, however,
>> codify into the Constitution that those other religions
>> would not have offical sanction in the US.
>
> The United States Supreme Court has already been presented
> with the question of same sex marriages. In 1971 the
> Minnesota Supreme Court held that same sex marriages did NOT
> violate the Federal Constitution's Equal Protection or Due
> Process clauses. It was appealed to the SC. They dismissed it
> for "want of a substantial federal question" which means the
> Minnesota Supreme Court issued a proper ruling on Federal Law.
>
> Since most states have now banned same sex marriages, even if
> the question were presented again to the SC under the
> Comity/Full faith and credit clause, they will refuse to hear
> it, period, or rule under the doctrine of "pre-emption" they
> can not overturn most of the states on an issue they have
> cleary decided.
>
> There is also a federal law against Polygamy, which has been
> upheld as NOT violative of the Federal Constitution.

The same sex marriage case is:

Baker v. Nelson (Minn. 1971) 191 N.W.2d 185, the decision was
appealed to the United States Supreme Court. The SC later
dismissed that appeal "for want of substantial federal
question", Baker v. Nelson 409 U.S. 810 (1972).