Re: New Amendment proposal

More | Report Post

On 10/14/04, Interested party wrote:
> 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).

Online link to the case:

http://www.umt.edu/phil/faculty/Walton/bakrvnel.htm
>